examining a culture of delay and adjournments: criminal
TRANSCRIPT
Examining a Culture of Delay and Adjournments: Criminal Case Processing in the
Trinidad and Tobago Magistrates‘ Court
Institute for Court Management
Court Executive Development Programme
2006 – 2007 Phase Three Project
May 2007
Jerome R. Mark
Deputy Court Executive Administrator
Department of Court Administration
Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank Almighty God for the ability to prepare and present this paper.
I thank my wife, Donna, for her continued support for my developmental pursuits, which
by their nature encroach on her time.
I thank the following persons who have assisted in one way or the other in the preparation
of this paper:
The Honourable Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago for approving and
supporting my pursuit of the Court Executive Development Programme;
Mr. Gary Kelly for his understanding, encouragement and support;
Mrs. Christie-Anne Morris-Alleyne for her confidence in me over the years and
for her constant advice provided on this study;
Ms. Michelle-Ann Austin for her editorial contribution;
Magistrate Lianne Lee Kim for her clarification of issues related to the
Magistrates‘ Court processes;
Mr. Desmond Hunte, Mr. Sean O‘Brien, Ms. Bernadette Mc Kree and other
member of the Court Statistical Unit for their assistance in data collection and
compilation of the statistics and their timely interventions in this regard;
Mrs. Zorina Ali Dan and Mr. Arnold Sealy for their assistance with the survey
implementation and collection and other areas of information gathering from the
Magistrates‘ Court;
Ms. Sharon Granado my assistant for her administrative support and tolerance;
My fellow Trinidadians, Donna, Wendy and Carlene, what an experience;
Dr. Geoff Gallas for his direction and advice on the progress of this study; and
The extraordinary team of Court Administrators from the 2007 CEDP class whose
inspirational e-discussions energised me to complete this study.
I am a better administrator and leader as I have come to realise as with all of life that the
learning is in the process.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS……………………………………………………………..4
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………….5 - 7
LIST OF APPENDICIES………………………………………………………………....8
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………….9
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….12
LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………………… 28
METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………………36
FINDINGS………………………………………………………………………………42
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………...68
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………79
APPENDICES……….………………………………………………………………….81
4
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Map of Trinidad and Tobago Showing Magisterial Districts .….……………...……15 -16
Current Work Flow (Indictable Offences) ………………………………………………18
Current Work Flow (Summary Offences) ………………………………………………19
American Bar Association Time Standards Chart ……..………..………………………30
Proposed Flow for Criminal Matters in the Magistrates‘ Court...……………………….72
5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Assignment of Magistrates and Annual Caseload by District …………………16
Table 2. Major Offences ………………………………………………………………...38
Table 3. Offences - Number and Percent ………………………………………………..38
Table 4. Time Taken to get Bail ……………………………………………………...…44
Table 5. Number of Trial Resets ……………………………………………………..….45
Table 6. Number of Adjournments ……………………………………………………...45
Table 7. Adjournments by Reason and Type of Matter ………………………………....46
Table 8. Time Taken to Dispose of Matters …………………………………………….49
Table 9. Matters Disposed Between 1/08/2005 and 31/07/2006 by Time to
Disposition……………………………………………………….…………….50
Table 10. Matters Filed Between 1/08/2005 and 31/07/2006 by Time to Disposal …….51
Table 11. Percentage Distribution of Methods of Disposal by Type of Matter ..……….52
Table 12. Response to Question 5 ………………………………………………………53
The Senior Magistrate of the district has established and/or endorsed the
Court's case-processing time standards.
Table 13. Response to Question 41………………………………………………………54
The Senior Magistrate meets with the Magistrates in their districts to review the
status of pending caseloads and discuss ways of dealing with common
problems.
Table 14. Response to Question 1………………………………………………………..55
The Court has adopted time standards that establish expected outside limits on
case-processing time from filing to disposition, for major categories of cases.
Table 15. Response to Question 29………………………………………………………55
The Court has time standards/guidelines governing the time interval between
each major stage in the litigation process.
Table 16. Response to Question 2. ………………………………………………………56
Magistrates who have responsibility for all/part of the caseload regularly
receive management information reports that enable them to know the number
6
of pending cases for which they are responsible, the distribution of these cases
by age since filing, and status of each case
Table 17. Response to Question 35. ……………………………………………………..57
The Court regularly produces reports that show trends in filings, dispositions,
pending caseloads and case processing times.
Table 18. Response to Question 11. ……………………………………………………..57
There are published policies and procedures governing the caseflow process,
readily available to Magistrates, the Court's staff and bar members
Table 19. Response to Question 43. ………………………………………………..……59
Mechanisms for obtaining the suggestions of Court staff about caseflow
management problems and potential improvements exist and are used by the
court's leaders
Table 20. Response to Question 4.……………………………………………………….58
The Court counts every case as pending from the date that the defendant has
been arrested or a summons is issued.
Table 21. Response to Question 60...…………………………………………………….59
How frequently are cases that have been scheduled for trial or hearing
adjourned because there are more ready cases than can be dealt with on the
scheduled date?
Table 22 Response to Question 6. ……………………………………………………….60
There is a commonly shared commitment, on the part of the magistrates, to the
principle that the Court has responsibility for ensuring expeditious case
processing.
Table 23. Response to Question 38. …………………………………………………..…61
The Magistrates recognize the need to monitor the pace of litigation and are
actively committed to seeing the court meet standards for expeditious case
processing.
Table 24. Response to Question 19. ……………………………………………………..62
Judicial support staff notify the Magistrates of cases that have been pending for
long periods of time and cases in which there have been repeated adjournments.
Table 25. Response to Question 28. ……………………………………………………..62
The Court has a central staff unit that regularly monitors the caseload,
identifies problems (e.g. pending caseload increasing; certain cases taking
unduly long), and provides recommendations for action to the chief magistrate
or senior magistrate.
7
Table 26. Response to Question 8. ………………………………………………………63
The Court regularly conducts training on caseflow management principles and
techniques for Magistrates and staff.
Table 27. Response to Question 30. ……………………………………………………..64
The Court has a standard orientation programme for new Magistrates and new
staff members, in which the Court's policies and expectations regarding
caseflow management are covered thoroughly.
Table 28. Response to Question 9. ………………………………………………………65
The Court has established and uses a system evaluating the effectiveness of
Magistrates in handling the portions of the court's total caseload for which they
have responsibility.
Table 29. Response to Question 45………………………………………………………65
Magistrates whose performance in managing the caseloads for which they are
responsible is below acceptable standards are provided with assistance and
receive negative sanctions if their performance does not improve.
Table 30. Response to Question 10. ……………………………………………………..66
The Court has a few or no cases pending for more than the maximum length of
time established by its own case-processing time standards or alternatively the
ABA case-processing time standards
Table 31. Response to Question 46. ……………………………………………………..67
The Court follows established procedures to identify inactive cases and bring
them to disposition.
8
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix I Flow Chart of a Criminal Trial………………………………………..…81
Appendix II Job Description for the Clerk of the Peace………………………………82
Appendix III Data Collection Instrument………………………………………………84
Appendix IV Letter to Caseflow Management Survey Participants……………………85
Appendix V Court Caseflow Assessment Survey……………………………………..87
9
ABSTRACT
The Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago comprises the Supreme Court of Judicature
and the Magistrates‘ Courts. The public perception of criminal justice in Trinidad and
Tobago is formed mainly through interaction with the magistrates‘ court, which deals
with 90% of criminal matters in the country. There has been a significant and steady
increase in the crime rate in Trinidad and Tobago, especially with regard to crimes of
violence. This has resulted in an outcry from all sectors of the national community
including private enterprise, politicians and public interest groups for the court system to
deal with its caseload more expeditiously.
This study assessed the mix of criminal matters in the magistrates‘ courts
throughout Trinidad and Tobago and the time taken by the court to dispose of these
matters. It identified the number of adjournments, the reasons recorded for these
adjournments and the effect of adjournments on the courts‘ workload. It also sought to
determine the number of matters that were dismissed due to continuous adjournments or
as a direct result of effects of continuous adjournments. It also explores the extent to
which other factors such as judicial commitment, court leadership, goals and standards
setting, the use of information, communication, judicial education, staff involvement,
caseflow management and organizational accountability are perceived to be issues which
affect the courts‘ ability to address the matters brought before it. Although many reports,
articles and speeches have focused on problems associated with the magistrates‘ courts
ability to deal with its caseload, this study provides data to allow for evidence based
decision-making and project implementation.
10
A representative sample of criminal cases from all magistrates‘ court locations
was extracted. The sample was proportionate to the size of each court, that is, the
number selected from each court was dependent on the number of matters disposed in the
particular court. A randomly selected group of stakeholders was asked to fill out a court
caseflow assessment questionnaire. The questionnaire, adapted from previous caseflow
management projects, was utilized to assess the court environment and the extent to
which key elements of good caseflow management are perceived to be present. Various
magistrates‘ courts were visited and personal observations were made with regard to the
administration of cases in the courtroom and the court registry. Information obtained at
various multi-agency committee meetings was also utilized.
The data reveled that 42.8% of cases surveyed had three or more adjournments.
Of those cases adjourned 52.6% relate to the non-appearance of either the complainant or
the defense or both. The remainder of the adjournments related to the courts‘ inability to
proceed due to the parties, or in some cases the court, not being ready to proceed. While
both the internal and external stakeholders, show confidence in the commitment of some
magistrates to actively manage cases, the survey identified concerns with regard to the
availability, awareness and sharing of information on the courts‘ case management
programmes, time standards and goals and more so on the involvement of staff in these
programmes. There is also a perception that the court is not being held accountable in the
exercise of its responsibility.
Improvement recommendations include establishment of a multi-agency
committee to prepare a comprehensive implementation plan for reform of the criminal
division of the magistrates court; a well-resourced pilot project to test new systems and
11
structures; inter-agency district court leadership and performance evaluation committees;
the setting of court performance standards and goals; expanded court support services
including technology, the creation of specialist staff positions, training and retooling of
all members of staff; and providing sensitization and awareness programmes for the
court‘s criminal justice partners concerning new procedures and needed support facilities.
12
INTRODUCTION
In an attempt to provide context for this study, a segment from the official website
of the Tourism Development Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago which offers a brief
narrative on the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago has been included in this section.
The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago comprises of two islands at the
southern-most end of the Caribbean archipelago. Trinidad – the larger of the two
islands – has an area of 4,828 sq km (1,864 sq mls) and is situated 10 km (7
miles) from the east coast of Venezuela. The capital city and main centre of
government, Port of Spain is a hub of business activity and a major financial
centre. San Fernando is the second largest city in the country, and is considered
the industrial capital. Tobago is 32 km (20 miles) off the north-east coast of
Trinidad and has an area of 300 sq km (116 sq mls). Its‘ principal administrative
centre is Scarborough, and is situated in the southern region of the island.
The two islands are a study in contrast, Trinidad is rich in natural
resources, predominantly oil and gas, and is known for its cosmopolitan lifestyle
and many festivities. The richness of its‘ flora and fauna reflects its past linkage
to the South American mainland. The more serene Tobago is the centre of the
country‘s tourism industry, with its coral reefs, sugary-white sand beaches,
natural beauty and a charisma all of its own.
Trinidad and Tobago comprises of a population of 1.3 million persons.
English is the predominant language in this ethnically integrated society,
however, French, Spanish, Hindi and Chinese are also spoken. The islands quality
of human capital is also evident by the large number qualified professionals.
This twin island state is a blend of many ethnic communities, religions,
folklore and traditions, originating from Africa, India, Europe, and the Far East.
Diversity naturally follows within this collage of cultures. The majority of people
practice the Roman Catholic religion however; Hinduism, Christianity and Islam
are also practiced. An assortment of cultures ranging from their food, music,
dance and traditions also enrich the national life of this cosmopolitan melting pot
of people. These celebrations certainly prove the creativity of the people is an
inexhaustible resource.1
About the Administration of Justice in Trinidad and Tobago
The Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago comprises the Supreme Court of Judicature
and the Magistracy. The Chief Justice heads the Judiciary, one of the three separate and
1Tourism Development Corporation: Country Profile, accessed February 15, 2007; available from
http://www.tdc.co.tt/ country_profile.htm; Internet. Our People, available from http://www.tdc.co.tt/
our_people.htm; Internet.
13
independent arms of the state, and is responsible for the overall administration of justice
in Trinidad and Tobago.
The Supreme Court is established by the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad
and Tobago and comprises the High Court and the Court of Appeal. A complement of
twenty-three High Court Judges exercise general jurisdiction over civil matters, family
matters where parties are married, and indictable criminal matters. A complement of
nine Justices of Appeal, who sit in a panel of two or three at a time, exercise an appellate
jurisdiction over decisions from the High Court and the Magistrates‘ Court. Appeals
from the Court of Appeal lie to the Privy Council in England, which is the court of last
resort.
The Supreme Court sits in three locations, Port of Spain, San Fernando and
Tobago. Judges can adjudicate on cases at any location based on a roster prepared by the
senior High Court Judge or based on random docket assignments as currently obtains in
civil matters.
The Magistrates‘ Court deals with civil matters involving sums less than fifteen
thousand dollars. Issues relating to family matters, such as custody, adoption,
maintenance and domestic violence are currently heard in the family division of the
magistrates‘ court. The Executive Branch recently approved a new Family Court
structure to deal with all family law matters, which would incorporate both the High
Court and Magistrates‘ Court jurisdictions in a single High Court jurisdiction. The
Magistrates‘ Court also exercises summary jurisdiction2 in criminal matters and holds
preliminary hearings in indictable matters for the purpose of determining whether the
2 A summary offence means any offence punishable on summary trial and conviction in the manner
provided by the Summary Court Act Chapter 4:20. The Summary Courts Act can be accessed from
http://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/Laws/Chs.%2010-13/11.02/11.02%20aos.htm; Internet.
14
prosecution has made out a prima facie case against an accused. Indictable matters are
sent to the High Court for trial once the prosecution has made a prima facie case. There
are no jury trials in the magistracy. A flow chart of a criminal trial prepared by the
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is presented at Appendix I.
There are no rules of procedure provided by the Judiciary for matters in the
Magistrates‘ Court and general procedures are derived from the various pieces of
legislation that govern its operations. Although the legislation provides deadlines for the
preferment of the charge after the offence has been committed and deadlines for certain
post disposition activity, there are no other time standards provided in legislation for the
progression of the case through its various stages of the court proceedings. This has
been recognised as one area that must be addressed with procedural rules to allow for
proper control by the court of matters under its jurisdiction.
In many instances, administrative procedures have evolved over the past 50 years
to ensure recording and retrieval of the court‘s proceedings and for the management of
cases in an attempt to deal with the increasing caseload in the Magistrates‘ Courts. This
has lead to a difference in the case processing systems at various magisterial district
courts. The magistrates‘ court is not a computerized environment and operates in a very
labour intensive manual system. There are however, a number of Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) projects that are at various stages of implementation
and the electronic recording of proceedings is now being introduced.
A Chief Magistrate who reports to the Chief Justice heads the Magistracy. The
Chief Magistrate is responsible for the supervision of Magistrates throughout Trinidad
and Tobago with the assistance of a Deputy Chief Magistrate. In addition to their
15
supervisory duties, these two officers are assigned cases and manage a full caseload.
There are 52 Magistrates assigned to the 13 magisterial district court locations throughout
the country as illustrated below. A Senior Magistrate is located at each district to
administer its judicial and legal affairs and is responsible for adjudicating on the more
complex and serious matters in the district.
A few smaller magisterial district locations have one court to deal with all
categories of cases and a senior magistrate is usually assigned to administer justice for
those districts. The largest district location has sixteen courts to which magistrates are
assigned to deal specifically with petty civil, family, traffic, summary offences or
preliminary enquiries. Magistrates can easily be assigned to handle any category of case
at any magisterial district court location. Matters must however be dealt with in the
district in which the offence occurs. The following illustration identifies the location of
magistrates‘ courts in Trinidad and Tobago. Table 1 identifies the number of magistrates
assigned to the various district court locations and the annual caseload.
16
TABLE 1- Assignment of Magistrates and Annual Caseload by District
District Number of
Magistrates
Assigned
Number of matters
initiated - per
district for the
period August
2005 – July 2006
Number of matters
listed for the
period August
2005 – July 2006
Number of matters
disposed of during
the period August
2005 – July 2006
St. George West 16 12,515 115,053 14,348
St. George West
(Family Court)
5
San Fernando 5 9,684 64,477 10,360
Tunapuna 4 5,945 37,339 5,780
Arima 4 7,577 50,561 9,040
Sangre Grande 2 5,625 25,644 4,485
Chaguanas 4 6,520 39,753 9,672
Couva 1 2,564 18,158 3,350
Siparia 2 5,561 25,157 5,488
Point Fortin 2 2,221 13,191 1,777
Princess Town 2 5,542 26,637 5,150
Mayaro 1 1,420 4,345 1,344
Rio Claro 1 1,647 9,893 1,974
Tobago 3 2,709 37,339 3,106
A Clerk of the Peace is assigned to each district and is responsible for managing
the court office and coordinating all judicial support services. He also attends to
17
members of the public and exercises other quasi-judicial functions. The Clerk of the
Peace, although not required to have legal qualifications, provides legal advice to
members of the public. The job description for the position of Clerk of the Peace is
attached at Appendix II.
In 1998, the Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago created a Department of Court
Administration to provide professional administrative support services for the Supreme
Court and the Magistrates‘ Court to ensure that a more unified approach was adopted to
address problems and issues arising with the administration of justice. A Court Executive
Administrator who reports to the Chief Justice heads the Court Administrative Unit,
which comprises professionals from various academic and technical disciplines, and
includes the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Chief Magistrate.
Criminal Proceedings in the Magistracy
There are three categories of criminal proceedings in the magistrates‘ court:
1. indictable offences;
2. summary offences; and
3. indictable offences heard summarily
1. Indictable Offences
Pursuant to the Indictable Offences (Preliminary Enquiry) Act the Magistrate is
charged with the responsibility of determining whether a prima facie case has been made
out against an accused person charged with an indictable offence. If a prima facie case
has been made out, the accused is committed to stand trial at the assizes (High Court).
The magistrate must forward the depositions to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
18
who is responsible for preparing the indictments and filing them in the High Court. The
procedures for the progress of a preliminary enquiry are detailed in the Indictable
Offences (Preliminary Enquiry) Act.3 The following illustration details the workflow for
Indictable offences:
2. Summary Offences; and
3. Indictable Offences heard summarily.
3 The Indictable Offences (Preliminary Enquiry) Act can be accessed from
http://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/Laws/Chs.%2010-13/12.01/12.01%20aos.htm; Internet.
Three copies of information is laid (filed) in the Court Registry by the Police. Information is dated,
stamped with relevant court stamp and signed by JP. The next available number from the General
Register is given. The complainants name, defendants name and offence are entered in the General
Register. Original information is entered on the Magistrates Case Sheet and sent to court, one copy is
given to police and one copy is kept on file. Can also proceed by summons.
Information is sent to the bonds desk for preparation of bail or Remand Warrant. Bail Bond and remand
warrant is signed by JP
If Police proceeding by warrant. Three copies of information and a warrant is filed, dated, the next
available number from the general register is given. The complainant name, defendant name and offence
is entered in the General Register, and stamped with relevant court stamp [e.g. Fraud case will be stamped
1st Court] Information and warrant are signed by the Justice of the Peace and Police officer takes an oath.
The original information is filed in cabinet by date (e.g. if information is filed in Jan 2007, it is kept in a
file dated Jan 2007. The Duplicate is kept in a Duplicate file and the third copy and warrant is given to the
police. When this warrant is executed, the original information is taken out of file and attached to warrant
and sent to relevant court for hearing.
The Accused is brought to court. At the initial appearance the Magistrate reads the charge to the accused
and informs the accused that he/she is not required to plead. The issue of bail is addressed if it is a
bailable offence.
If prosecution recommends summary trial and accused elects summary trial, the defendant is called upon
to plead. The issue of Bail is addressed.
The Magistrate writes his/her decision on the case sheet and also notes the appearance eg. CA -
Complainant Appears, AA - Accused Appears [attorney's name if any], Rd – Remanded 24/3/2007 in
custody, the notetaker endorses the back of the information with the same information
INDICATBLE OFFENCES
OR
19
Pursuant to the Summary Offences Act the magistrates‘ court is responsible for
the trial of individuals charged with summary offences or certain indictable offences that
can be heard summarily.4 As with preliminary enquiries, most of the procedures for the
processing of a summary offence are detailed in the Summary Offences Act. The
following illustration details the workflow for summary offences and for indictable
offences tried summarily:
4 From time to time, the Parliament may amend legislation to provide for certain indictable offences to be
tried summarily given the prevalence of these offences.
Three (3) copies of information is filed in the Registry by Police Information is dated and the next
available number from the General Register is given. The complainant name, defendant name and offence
are entered in the General Register. If proceeding by summons, the date of hearing is written at the
bottom of information, stamped (e.g. 3rd Court) and signed by the JP
Information is laid (filed) in the
Court Registry by the police
Information is laid ( filed) in the
Court Registry by the Police
If Defendant pleads Guilty, the facts are taken and the Defendant is asked to admit (or deny) facts. A plea in
mitigation can be made on behalf of the Defendant after which the Magistrate can impose a sentence or
reprimand and discharge. Sometimes, the Magistrate may adjourn the matter in order to 'trace' the Defendant
before sentencing.
The Defendant is brought to Court. At the Initial
appearance the Magistrates Reads the Charge and the
Defendant is called upon to plead. If Defendant pleads
Not Guilty, trial can proceed if parties are ready. If they
are not ready, the matter is adjourned, the Issue of Bail
is addressed or the Defendant is remanded in custody
On date of hearing the defendant (if served) appears.
The charge is read and defendant is called upon to plead
Guilty or Not Guilty. If Defendant pleads Not Guilty,
trial can proceed if parties are ready. If the parties are
not ready the matter is adjourned. If the summons was
not served, the Court orders a fresh summons.
If by Warrant, a copy of the documents (information and the warrant) are given to the Police and the
Original retained by the Court. Upon execution of the warrant, the original information is attached to the
warrant and the warrant is entered in the warrant-executed book. The information is booked on the case
sheet and sent to the Court.
A copy of the complaint/information is given to the Police and the original retained by the Court, duplicate kept on file.
The Magistrate writes the decision on the case sheet and the notetaker endorses the back of the information e.g.
CA DA Rd 10/03/2007 OB $10,000. Information is sent to the bonds desk for preparation of Bail Bonds,
Remand Warrant, Jail term etc. All other information is sent the Time Allowed Section.
If the Defendant pleads Not Guilty but does not have an attorney, the Magistrate will enquire if he/she requires a
Legal Aid Attorney. If the Defendant requires an attorney he/she is advised to apply for Legal Aid
SUMMARY OFFENCES By arrest or warrant By summons
20
A citizen of Trinidad and Tobago can initiate his or her own proceedings through
the filing of a Private Complaint.
The present case management system requires that a list of cases be prepared
manually for each court on a daily basis. The list comprises new charge cases and
ongoing cases that have been adjourned to that date from a previous hearing. The court
list is usually very long. All parties related to a matter including police complainants,
witnesses, accused persons, victims, prosecutors and defence attorneys, must be present
in court at 9:00 a.m. on the day that their matter is listed. The average individual court
list on a daily basis ranges from 45 matters in the smaller districts to 116 matters in the
larger districts.
If an accused is charged by the police and is brought to court on the same day, the
case is simply added to the list of the court that is hearing that type of matter. The
process usually involves the entry of the particulars of the complaint in a charge book and
a date book and the complaint form is then taken to the relevant courtroom and inserted at
the next available space on the ―case sheet‖ which contains the list of cases before that
magistrate on that day.
If after the initial appearance, the accused person is remanded in custody then
that person‘s case must be listed every ten days before the court to which the matter is
adjourned. In the vast majority of these cases the parties are not ready to proceed and the
case is adjourned on several occasions thereafter. In most cases, the court takes no
significant steps to ensure that parties are ready for trial or ready to proceed with any
aspect of the case on the date to which the matter is adjourned. The prosecutor is the
functionary traditionally charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the case is ready
21
to proceed. Almost every adjournment request from the defence or the prosecution is
granted.5
Records Management
The procedures for creating and managing records in the magistrates court is
based upon the returnable date for particular court events. The court is usually interested
in dealing with the court list for the day rather than management of individual cases and
creation of complete case files. The case sheet6, the note takers notebook
7 and the
information (complaint form)8 are main features in this system. In 90% of the
magistrates‘ courts, there is no dedicated staff assigned to manage the courts records and
no structured records management system exists. If an interested party requires
information on the next scheduled hearing date for a particular matter, a request must be
made to the court registry staff who will then have to ascertain the last hearing date for
the matter and view the case sheet for that court for that day to find out the next
scheduled date. If the interested party or even the court needs to obtain an extract9 of the
courts proceedings, the last hearing date must also be provided.
5 Carl Baar characterizes courts that do this as symbolic. See Carl Baar, ―Will the Courts Survive the War
on Crime?‖ The Potential for Reform of Criminal Justice, Herbert Jacobs ed, Sage, 1974, pp. 331 –347. 6 The presiding magistrate records the events and decisions that take place in the matters listed for hearing
on that particular day on the case sheet. The case sheet is the official record of the court proceedings and
must be signed by the magistrate to be considered valid. 7 The notebook is used by the court note-taker to record the proceedings, events and outcomes of the
matters listed for hearing on a particular day. During preliminary enquiries and summary trials the note-
taker must take down in writing all the testimony given before the court. The notebook must be signed by
the magistrate to be considered as an official record. 8 The court note-taker is required to endorse the back of the complaint form with the events that occur each
time the matters is listed for hearing. 9 An extract is a copy of the order made in the any magistrates‘ court proceedings and is produced from the
magistrate‘s case sheet.
22
Court Related Agencies
Magistrates and court staff acknowledge that cases are frequently adjourned due
to – (i) the unavailability of police officers who are complainants or witnesses before the
court; (ii) failure of accused persons to settle the issue of legal representation; and (iii)
delays in the analysis of exhibits at the Forensic Science Centre. The respective
Directors of the Office of the DPP, Legal Aid and Advisory Authority and Forensic
Sciences Centre and the Commissioner of Police have all indicated that staff shortages,
the inexperience of existing staff and the inadequacy of their internal procedures hamper
their ability to provide a proper level of service to the court. The symbiotic nature of the
relationships between these major stakeholders in the criminal justice system necessarily
means that deficiencies in the operations of one department will eventually have a
negative impact on the other stakeholders and eventually affect the courts ability to
dispose of its cases.
Information and Communication Technology
At present, no computerized case management information system is available to
support the operations of the Magistrates‘ Courts in Trinidad and Tobago and labour
intensive manual procedures are utilized to process cases. Although a computerized
system of recording evidence is currently being introduced, the system of longhand note
taking is the predominant mode of recording court proceedings. Communication between
court districts on court related matters occur mainly by regular mail, telephone and
facsimile.
23
Human Resources
While the volume and complexity of matters engaging the attention of the courts
has increased as a consequence of both the increase in crime and the passage of new
pieces of legislation, the staffing levels at the Magistrates‘ Courts have not been
increased in the last decade. In fact the magistrate is usually assisted only by a court
―note-taker‖ to record the proceedings and depends on a pool of secretarial and clerical
personnel assigned to the general court office to provide other required services. There is
no team assigned to assist the magistrate in actively managing the cases before the court.
In fact, it has been observed that the major activities of the court office staff are attending
to members of the public, managing the preparation of an accurate list of cases to be put
before the magistrates on the adjourned days, processing completed case sheets from the
various courts at the end of each day, preparation of manual ticklers of time allowed to
pay fines related to court orders, preparing remand warrants for accused persons
remanded in custody and preparing bail bonds for those accused persons admitted to bail.
The processing of various activities in the court to a certain extent takes place in silos and
the coordination of activities is dependant on the management style of the individual
magistrate, clerk of the peace or section supervisors taking on that active role on their
own volition.
Additionally, The rapid turnover of staff, due to the nature of the centralised
public service appointments where public officers are promoted in and out of the
organisation, has also resulted in the loss of institutional memory and expertise, while no
structured orientation training programme exists to develop the knowledge, skills and
abilities of new staff members.
24
Clerks of the Peace do not now posses the skills and formal training required to
execute some of the functions, which they now perform. It has been proposed by the
Judiciary, that a position of Magistracy Registrar/Clerk of the Court be created to
properly manage the judicial administrative and legal responsibilities of the court office.
It has been further suggested that an attorney at law hold this position.
Court Facilities
Although a court facilities improvement programme was implemented over the
past five years to improve the physical operating conditions at the Magistrates‘ Courts,
approximately 60 percent of the magistrates‘ courts facilities still do not possess the
necessary support infrastructure to adequately provide for the modern needs of the
various categories of users and administrators of the court.
Recent Efforts at Reform
The existing operating procedures in the Magistrates‘ Court are by nature reactive
with no meaningful management and control being exercised by the court. The culture of
adjournments has created a lack lustre approach by all who practice in the criminal
jurisdiction and has resulted in public confidence in the criminal justice system reaching
an all time low as can be gleaned from the numerous media reports over the past year.
While over the past five years attempts have been made to address the magistrates‘ court
inability to handle its criminal caseload, it can be argued that a more collaborative and
integrated approach must be planned to realize tangible results.10
The gradual
introduction of technology and other system reform initiatives by magistrates, court
10
Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago. Report of the Committee Established to Consider (i) Measures which can be
Adopted to Shorten Criminal Trails in the Assizes and Magistrates‘ Courts, and (ii) a Proposal for Setting Up a Remand
Court Within the Vicinity of the Golden Grove Prison, February 2003. p. 5.
25
managers and administrators, which were not always well integrated, yielded a poor level
of success with no real process improvement recorded to date.
Audio Digital Court Recording
A review was done on the impact of the use of audio digital recording technology
on the conduct of trials and preliminary enquiries in the Scarborough Magistrates‘
Courts. The Senior Magistrate at the court revealed that the time taken to record
evidence has been reduced considerably. It was pointed out that recording of evidence in
a trial usually takes one month to complete because of the longhand system of note
taking, the need to read back to witnesses and have them certify as accurate the evidence
taken down in writing and constant rescheduling issues. The court however was able to
complete four such trials in one day utilizing the audio digital recording system. The
system allows you to record the evidence at the speed of speech and not have to depend
on the writing speed and accuracy of the notetaker.
Pilot Court Projects
Criminal
The Remand Court Committee had proposed that a criminal caseflow pilot project
be organized to introduce the use of caseflow management techniques in the Magistrates‘
Courts. The recommendations were laudable and created the collaboration between the
various agencies in the criminal justice sector. It however presented logistical challenges
for the administration of the proposals by the court. The Committee proposed the
implementation of a case flow management pilot court in the St. George West Magisterial
District. This court would receive all new matters initiated in the district and mange
these matters until they were ready for transference to a trial list. It included the
26
requirement for the assigned magistrate to complete a case management questionnaire to
assist in the management of the case. The Department of Court Administration
highlighted the following issues with the project as conceived:
the St. George West Magistrates Court, the largest and most complicated
magisterial district, did not provide a properly resourced environment with
the necessary systems and processes in place, human resources and
technology tools and records management infrastructure;
the increased competencies required by staff to operate a court controlled
case management system were not available. In addition, an already
overloaded staffing and court caseload would complicate the then existing
and proposed system;
the judicial officer could not realistically manage the extensive lists which
would result on a daily basis and still be required to complete a
questionnaire in court for all matters initiated;
the pilot court would have displaced existing courts to provide
accommodation for its operations; and
the complications of operating two parallel systems without a suitable
operating environment for either.
Family
The Judiciary has learnt lessons over the past three years with the operation of a
Family Court pilot project. The pilot court has also revealed the benefits of having a
dedicated court manager working closely with all of the agencies responsible for
interacting within in the family jurisdiction and facilitating the management of cases
27
through the provision of case management and administrative support services to judicial
officers, all in a collaborative and consultative manner. The court has been well
resourced and continues to operate an efficient service to the public. The court leadership
team of judicial officers and administration and the oversight of a Monitoring committee
comprising stakeholders in the family justice system continuously review individual and
court performance data which allows the court to continuously assess its performance
standards, goals and measurements and provide feedback to the entire family justice
community.
28
LITERATURE REVIEW
Culture is defined as the arts, customs, beliefs and all the other products of human
thought made by a people at a particular time.11
Any attempt to address the existing
culture of adjournments and delay in the magistrates‘ courts, can be described as an effort
to change the negative thoughts and beliefs that currently exist both internally and
externally and to reengineer the customs, practices and arts (practical skills) of those who
practice and operate in the court to make criminal case processing more efficient and
effective.
In a review of nine state criminal trial courts Ostrom and Hanson review the
concept of a ―local legal culture‖ where expectation, born out of experience, can lead
attorneys, prosecutors and judicial officers to ―live up‖ to their shared expectation for
long case processing time or as in the case of Trinidad and Tobago, the adjournment
culture. It was found that there is ―an attitudinal consensus in each court system.‖12
The
Judiciary must therefore explore the extent to which the change of culture in the criminal
justice sector can be managed or driven from within the Judicial Branch, given the
existing case processing environment that is driven mainly by defence attorneys and
police prosecutors.
Case Processing
The court management body of knowledge acknowledges that court delay and
backlog issues have been around for centuries, however, the literature produced over the
last four decades examines principles and techniques aimed at improving the efficiency
11
See Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 1978. p. 270 12
Brian Ostrom and Roger Hanson, Efficiency, Timeliness and Quality: A New Perspective from Nine
State Criminal Trial Courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Centre for State Courts, 1999. p. 78.
29
and effectiveness of courts. These principles and techniques referred to as caseflow
management have achieved some measure of success during the court reform efforts in
the United States of America in the twentieth century and continue to be relevant to date.
The main thrust of caseflow management is the coordination of all the courts
processes and all the courts resources to move cases from initiation to disposition.
According to David Steelman et al. caseflow management involves the court taking
control of its cases by creating meaningful case events and managing these events and the
parties to these events to ensure that justice is delivered in a timely manner, while
ensuring that the rights of the parties are not infringed.13
The introduction of caseflow
management principles and techniques and its enabling myriad of tools, systems and
structures to the criminal division of the magistrates‘ courts will be a drastic shift in a
culture that has become reactionary and mechanical over the past 50 years.
Steelman et al. explores the need for caseflow management to be grounded by
time standards or guidelines that citizens would consider as ―reasonable‖ for the court to
process most cases.14
It is widely accepted that time destroys the purposes of courts, as is
borne out by the saying ‗justice delayed is justice denied‘. Accepted trial court case
processing time standards are undergirded by normative assertions that any time taken to
process a case that is longer than the time reasonably required to allow for pleadings,
discovery and other court events including case preparation represents delay.15
Caseflow
management seeks to provide the court with the ability to address this delay and to
effectively and efficiently manage its caseload. Case processing times are usually
13
David Steelman with John Goerdt and James McMillan, Caseflow Management: The Heart of Court
Management in the New Millennium. National Centre for State Courts, 2000. p. 6. 14
Ibid. p. 73. 15
American Bar Association (ABA), Standards Relating to Trial Courts, ed. 1992. Section 2.50.
30
calculated as the time between filing and disposition. Although Trinidad and Tobago has
not yet adopted case processing time standards for its magistrates‘ court criminal
division, the industry standards for criminal case processing as adopted by the American
Bar Association (ABA), reproduced below,16
may be utilized for the purpose of
comparison in this study.
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION TIME STANDARDS
Time Within Which Cases Should Be Adjudicated
Or Otherwise Concluded
Case Type 90% 98% 100%
Felony 120 days 180 days 365 days
Misdemeanour 30 days - 90 days
Source: ABA, Standards Relating to Trial Courts, 1992 Edition, Section 2.52
The National Association of Court Management, through its Caseflow
Management Curriculum Guidelines, has identified the following issues as critical to the
successful operation of a caseflow management system:
court system and trial court organization and authority relationships;
identification, development, selection and succession of chief judges and
court managers, chief judge and court manager executive leadership teams
and other multi disciplinary executive teams;
allocation of resources across courts, court divisions, case types and
particular types of hearings;
application of court technology and the court‘s research, data and
analytical capability; and
16
This chart was reproduced in part to highlight the case processing time standards for criminal cases.
Traffic cases utilize the time standards for misdemeanors. See Note 13 supra, p. 75.
31
coordination with the judiciary‘s justice system partners. 17
Various justice sector stakeholders in Trinidad and Tobago have now begun to
accept, after the introduction of various low impact initiatives, that efficiency can only be
achieved if the efforts are coordinated among all stakeholder agencies and departments.
It is unfortunate however that increasing criminal activity has been the main catalyst to
the acceptance of this philosophy by the powers that be, which are always interested in
protecting ‗turf‘.
Although it has been recognised that the court must take early control of the
management of the case to ensure that all parties are prepared and that events will take
place as scheduled, recognition must also be given to the fact that coordination of parties
and agencies that are external to the court requires buy-in and presupposes that these
agencies have adequate resources.
Court Organization and Administration
Herbert Simon in exploring the various theories on the best administrative design
for an organisation explains, ―mutually incompatible advantages must be balanced
against each other‖.18
There is no single guiding principle for effective administration,
whether unity of command; centralization vs. decentralization; or focus on purpose,
process, customer or location; but these are all criteria for diagnosing and exploring
administrative situations in a holistic context. The court with its myriad of relationships
and inter-dependencies must address its administrative structures and explore all of these
criteria to ensure that justice is delivered in as fair and accessible an environment as
17
See NACM Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines: What Court Leaders Need to Know and Be Able
to Do, Court Manager 18, no. 2, pp. 16-20. 18
Herbert Simon, ―Some Problems of Administrative Theory,‖ from Administrative Behavior, Free Press,
Third Edition, 1976. p. 36.
32
achievable. Some terms used by Simon19
such as ‗systems of communication‘,
‗realism‘, ‗loyalties‘, ‗limitations to performance‘ and the reference to administration as
an ―art‖ rather than a science provide food for thought on the extent to which efficiency
in the coordination of justice sector agencies can be achieved by one central agency
rather than an understanding between agencies and on flexible yet principled
manipulation of the system to ensure the delivery of justice. Geoff Gallas identifies the
necessity for courts as the independent third branche to manage, not other organisations,
but organisational environments and recognize the workflow and resource
dependencies.20
Roscoe Pound‘s exploration of popular dissatisfaction with the administration of
justice21
is relevant, even today, in a scenario where there is a constant change in the
social, moral and political conditions in Trinidad and Tobago. There is a general lack of
confidence and distrust in the system of justice perpetuated in the minds of the public
who do not understand the difference between the formulation of laws and its
interpretation and application by the court and the role played by other agencies involved
in the ―administration of justice‖22
. The court must constantly apply the law, considering
the greater good of the community, while balancing the delivery of individual justice in
individual cases.
Carl Baar in reviewing the persistence of courts especially in an environment of
stressors coming from external quarters, explains that courts can either lose their purpose,
19
Ibid. pp. 20-44 20
Geoff Gallas, The Convention of State Court Administration: A Critical Assessment and An Alternative
Approach, The Justice System Journal, Spring, 1976. p. 44. 21
Roscoe Pound, ―The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice,‖ American
Bar Association Reports 29, 1906. 22
The term administration of justice is often used interchangeably to refer to the judicial management of
court matters as well as the execution of duties performed by the Office of the Attorney General, the Office
of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and Law Enforcement Officers.
33
be absorbed as another part of the general justice system or adapt to perform in a
leadership and change-agent role to effectively manage its caseload and administer
justice. The current method being suggested by the chambers of commerce and public
interest groups in Trinidad and Tobago to deal with the delays and adjournments
experienced in the court is to create a more collaborative approach between all members
of the justice sector. Baar explores the political pressure that can be brought to bear on
the judiciary. The best response, he explores, is to resist the attempt to absorb the
judiciary in to another arm in the criminal justice sector. He notes that:
―When the boundaries between courts and other segments of the criminal justice
system are no longer distinct because courts share those segments common goals,
common management and a common language, then courts have been absorbed
into a larger system and have failed to persist‖23
and to do this ―converts them into quasi-judicial arms of a regulatory agency‖24
.
The best approach, as proposed by Baar, is the utilisation of administrative
techniques to increase the level of involvement of judicial officers in the criminal
process. He proposes the provision of court support personnel to ―oversee the criminal
process, so that the court becomes central rather than peripheral to the administration of
criminal justice‖25
.
The American Bar Association (ABA) in its earlier works identified, among
others, two basic objectives of the court system as the determination of matters
committed to its jurisdiction and the maintenance of itself as an independent and
respected branch of government.26
The ABA‘s commentary on Standards Relating to
Court Organization advanced the position that courts should administer their own affairs
23
See note 5 supra. p. 337 24
Baar, loc. cit. 25
Ibid. p. 342. 26
See American Bar Association (ABA), Standards Relating to Court Organization, ed. 1974. Section 1.0.
34
through judicial and administrative councils to ensure that the objectives are met. Among
the administrative provision explored in these earlier works by the American Bar
Association, the need was highlighted for a system of uniform rules throughout the court
system, which could act as guidelines for magistrates, authorities for court personnel, and
authoritative references for attorneys and as a check on favouritism, corruption and local
prejudice. The ABA commentary also gave recognition to the important role that
continuing judicial education may play in achieving success with the introduction of new
court rules of procedure and other systemic changes. It states, ―Continuing professional
training, in addition to its direct educational product, stimulates and reinforces a sense of
common purpose among those who participate in it.‖27
In this regard the court should set
realistic goals and standards, institute a consistent program to measure and report on the
courts‘ performance and educate and inform the courts partners and stakeholders on the
supporting role that is expected from them and update as progress takes place.
Court Support Services
The CourTools performance measures were developed by the National Centre for
State Courts28
to assist court administrators in assessing the extent to which they have
been effective stewards of the public resources entrusted to them. The ten CourTools
performance measures, with the exception of measure eight, can benefit the magistracy as
it embarks on the change process by helping asses problems and moving towards setting
the performance goals up front, agreeing on the measurement plan and documenting the
success of the transformation process as it unfolds. Although the level of statistics
required for providing the baseline data is not currently available, the recent thrust
27
Ibid., Section 1.11(c), p. 13. 28
See CourTools, National Centre for State Courts, 2005.
35
towards data collection and the impending introduction of Case Management Information
Software will allow the court to realistically determine its current performance.
36
METHODOLOGY
The research design included several levels of analysis including a review of
available caseload statistics, archival case processing and performance data collection, a
court assessment questionnaire, personal observations and interviews. Pretests were
conducted for the data collection instrument and the court assessment questionnaire.
An Area Court Manager and one Deputy Court Executive Administrator pretested
the court assessment questionnaire and three court statistical clerks pretested the archival
data collection instrument at the St. George West Magistrates Court. The pretest revealed
that the court assessment questionnaire was very long, however it was deemed necessary
by this researcher. The data collection instrument was adjusted to include ―number of
persons charged‖ in an attempt to see if number of accused in a matter had any significant
effect on the court processing time.
1. Review of Available Caseload Statistics
A review of the 2005 – 2006 Annual Report of the Judiciary was done to obtain
general caseload statistics for all Magistrates‘ Courts in Trinidad and Tobago.
Information was obtained on the number of matters filed and determined generally, and
specifically for the criminal jurisdiction for the period August 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006.
The clearance rates for criminal cases (excluding traffic mattes) were calculated and
provided. An attempt was made to determine the pending caseload for the magistrates‘
court but this information was not readily available.
37
2. Data Collection: Documenting Criminal Case Processing Practices and
Performance
The data collection instrument included as Appendix III was administered by the
Court Statistical Unit to obtain information from case sheets and other court documents
on the processing of cases in all Magistrates‘ Courts in Trinidad and Tobago by
examining matters, which were disposed between August 1st 2005 and July 31
st 2006.
The sample size was determined to be approximately six hundred (600). While the
sample was supposed to provide data on matters disposed between August 1st 2005 and
July 31st 2006, there were 16 matters, which fell outside of that time frame.
The sample was systematically selected using an interval of 100 for traffic matters
and 50 for all other matters. The sample was proportionate to the size of each court, that
is, the number selected from each court was dependent on the number of matters disposed
in the particular court.
Before the sample was selected it was necessary to ensure that the matters were
sorted by month of disposal. The months were then placed in order starting with August
2005 followed by September 2005 right up to July 2006.
Starting with matters disposed in August 2005 and using a randomly selected
number from 1 to 50 the first matter was selected. Thereafter every fiftieth matter was
selected. The months were treated as a continuum so that if in August there were 200
matters the first matter in September 2005 became number 201.
A total of 681 matters were examined of which 239 or 35.1% were indictable
matters while traffic matters accounted for 286 or 42.0% of the total number of matters.
38
Summary maters accounted for 81 or 11.9% and other matters 75 or 11.0% accounted for
the remainder. (Table 2)
Table 2. Major Offences
MAJOR OFFENCES NUMBER PERCENT
Indictable Matter 239 35.1
Summary Matter 81 11.9
Traffic Matters 286 42.0
Other 75 11.0
TOTAL 681 100.0
Of the indictable matters, charges relating to narcotics accounted for 138 or
20.3% of all matters and 57.5% of the total indictable matters. In the case of traffic
matters 127 or 18.6% were for driving offences, while 159 or 23.3% were other traffic
matters. Private complaints 64 accounted for the bulk of the other matters (Table 3).
Table 3. Offences - Number and Percent
OFFENCES NUMBER PERCENT
Kidnapping 1 0.1
Arms & Ammunition 16 2.3
Sexual Offences 8 1.2
Narcotics 138 20.3
Fraud 10 1.5
Robbery 14 2.1
Wounding 17 2.5
Larceny 35 5.1
Housebreaking 12 1.8
Other Summary Matters 69 10.1
Driving Offences 127 18.6
Other Traffic 159 23.3
Petty Civil 4 0.6
Private Complaints 64 9.4
Other 7 1.0
TOTAL 681 99.9
39
A number of problems were encountered during the exercise. Very often the
records of disposed matters were not kept in an orderly manner at the various courts. As
far as was possible they were arranged by month before selection. It was not possible to
arrange them by day.
Another difficulty related to the reasons identified in the court records for
adjournments. In many instances no reason was given while in other instances there were
inconsistencies in the codes used for the reason. This is as a result of the different
procedures and administrative systems put in place at the various court locations and also
due to a lack of standard setting across the board. This is currently being addressed.
3. Caseflow Management Survey: Survey of Key Persons on the Issues
Impacting Case Processing in the Criminal Courts
The survey instrument included as Appendix V was adapted from the Trial Court
Self-assessment Questionnaire and Scoring Forms produced by Barry Mahoney et al.to fit
the Trinidad and Tobago context.29
Participants were randomly selected and requested to
complete the form and return it within three weeks. Participants were selected from two
large magisterial court districts and one small district court and this included magistrates,
clerks of the peace, general court staff, police prosecutors and defence attorneys. Area
Court Mangers were thoroughly briefed on the administration of the survey and assisted
in its distribution and collection. They also provided clarification to the participants on
areas that required such.
29
Barry Mahoney, Maureen Solomon, Antoinette Bonacci-Miller and Holly C. Bakke, Trial Court Self-
assessment Questionnaire and Scoring Forms, National Centre for State Courts, 1989.
40
Despite the above reported efforts, survey responses took longer than expected to
return and the analysis and presentation of the results were also delayed. A total of 13
persons completed the survey from a target group of 30, and a few of the returned
surveys were incomplete. The individual results were compiled and compared and group
results were also produced. Due to the small sample size, the results from all groups
were analysed as one data set and no real comparisons could be made between groups.
4. Personal Observation and Site Visits
As a part of the study, three courts, one large and two small, were visited to make
personal observations on the court proceedings for one half day each and another half day
was spent observing the procedures and processes in the court registries. This exercise
was very valuable in connecting the statistical data provided in the report with the views
expressed during the informal group discussions and my own perceptions on the
operations of the magistrates‘ court.
5. Interviews
Information, which this study proposed to obtain through structured interviews,
had to be derived from group session and various justice sector committee meetings
where some of the initial findings were explored with participants. It was originally
proposed that the findings of the surveys and data collection exercise would be presented
to the various categories of stakeholder via group sessions to obtain their views on the
results. This however, could not be done due to the time taken to process the
questionnaires and other time constraints. The information gained from on going
41
discussion at various committee meetings on similar issues related to the criminal justice
sector has therefore been utilized in this project report.
42
FINDINGS
The data collected identified the mix of criminal matters in the magistrates‘ court
and the time taken by the court to dispose of these matters. The data also highlighted the
number of adjournments, the reasons recorded for these adjournments and the effect of
adjournments on the court workload. It also sought to assess the number of matters that
were dismissed due to continuous adjournments or as a direct result of effects of
continuous adjournments.
The results of the court assessment survey highlight the perception of operators
and users of the court with regard to the issues of judicial commitment, court leadership,
staff involvement, the use of information and communication, judicial education,
organizational accountability and the awareness and utilization of case management
concepts and principles in the current court system.
Caseload Statistics
According to the 2005 –2006 Annual Report of the Judiciary 69,510 cases were
initiated between the period August 2005 to July 2006, of which 46,514 or 66.9% were
criminal matters. The number of cases disposed of between the same period was 75,874,
of which 54,949 were criminal maters.30
When traffic matter are excluded, the number of
criminal matters initiated amount to 38,477 while the number of matters disposed were
32,294, giving a clearance rate of 83.9%.
30
The pending caseload for the magistrates‘ court is not readily available. The information must be
obtained during a concentrated exercise over the next six to nine months as a separate and dedicated
exercise.
43
Case Processing
In the vast majority of cases in the sample, 620 or 91.0%, there was only one
charge. In 21 or three percent of the cases there were three other charges laid.
Chart 3 Number of Other Charges
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
0 1 2 3+
Other Charges
Pe
rce
nt
In terms of the number of other persons included in the charges, the majority of
cases 632 or 92.8% had no other persons charged. In 11 matters or 2.8% there were three
or more other persons charged.
Chart 4 Number of Other Persons
Charges
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
0 1 2 3+
Other Persons
Pe
rce
nt
Of the matters reviewed 152 or 22.3% were bailable matters, and of these in the
majority of cases 66 or 43.4%, bail was obtained the same day. In 48 matters or 31.6% of
the matters the accused was not able to obtain bail. (Table 5). This means that 48
44
persons in addition to the non-bailable offenders had to return to court every ten days to
be remanded in custody until disposal of their matters.
Table 4. Time taken to get Bail
TIME FOR BAIL TOTAL PERCENT
Same Day 66 43.4
Less Than 1 month 34 22.4
1 - 3 months 2 1.3
3 - 6 months 2 1.3
No Bail obtained 48 28.6
TOTAL 152 100.0
Chart 5. Time taken to get bail
0
10
20
30
40
50
Same Day Less Than
1 month
1 - 3
months
3 - 6
months
No Bail
obtained
Time for bail
Pe
rec
nt
Of the matters that came before the court 178 or 26.1% had a trial; the remaining
73.9% were determined based on the hearing of the information presented. Of those that
had a trial 159 or 89.3% had no resets while six or three point five percent had three or
more resets. (Table 6)
45
Table 5. Number of Trial Resets
NO OF TRIAL RESETS TOTAL PERCENT
None 159 89.3
One 5 2.8
Two 4 2.2
Three or more 6 3.5
Not Stated 2 2.2
TOTAL 176 100
Adjournments
While in 258 or 37.9% of matters there were no adjournments in 24 or 3.5% of
the matters there were 30 or more adjournments. Overall in 13.5% of matters there were
ten or more adjournments (Table 7).
Table 6. Number of Adjournments
NO. OF ADJOURNMENTS TOTAL PERCENT
TOTAL
NUMBER OF
HEARINGS
0 258 37.9 258
1 58 8.5 116
2 74 10.9 222
3 56 8.2 224
4 53 7.8 212
5 32 4.7 160
6 19 2.8 114
7 13 1.9 91
8 11 1.6 88
9 15 2.2 135
10 7 1 70
11-19 47 6.9 517 – 893
20-29 14 2.1 240 – 406
30+ 24 3.5 > 720
TOTAL 681 100 3,167 - 3709
46
The reasons for adjournments are shown in Table 8. Overall there were 3372
adjournments listed or an average of approximately five adjournments per case. The
major reasons for adjournments were ―non-appearance of complainant‖, 38.3%, ―non-
appearance of accused‖, 6.8%, ―non-appearance of both parties‖, 7.5%, and ―no reason
given‖, 43.1%. These accounted for 95.7% of all adjourned matters.
Table 7. Adjournments by Reason and Type of Matter
Reason for adjournment Total Non-capital Traffic
No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent
Non-appearance of
complainant
1298 38.3 967 37.1 331 42.0
Non-appearance of
defendant/accused
230 6.8 104 4.0 126 16.0
Non-appearance of both
parties
254 7.5 84 3.2 170 21.6
No reason given 1461 43.1 1312 50.4 149 18.9
Other 149 4.3 137 5.3 12 1.5
TOTAL 3392 100.0 2604 100.0 788 100.0
The situation is completely different when the adjournments are examined by type
of matter namely non-capital and traffic. In the case of non-capital matters no reason was
given in 50.4% of the adjournments as compared to 18.9% for traffic matters. On the
other hand ―non-appearance of both parties‖ accounted for only 3.2% of non-capital
adjournments but 21.6% of traffic matters. ―Non-appearance of complainant‖31
accounted
for the second highest amount of adjournments for both types of matters. In the case of
non-capital matters the proportion was 37.1% while for traffic matters it was 42.0%.
31
The complainant referred to is the police officer that charges the accused and brings the complaint before
the court.
47
Chart 7. Adjourment by reason and by matter
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Non-ap
pear
. of c
ompl.
..
Non-ap
pear
. of d
efend
.
Non-ap
pear
. of b
oth
No reas
on g
iven
Oth
er
Reason for adjournment
Pe
rce
nt Total
Non-capital
Traffic
It was observed, and court staff have confirmed, that the reasons provided in court
for the non-appearance of the complainant in a number of cases are illness, vacation
leave, officer out of the jurisdiction, officer on special assignment and/or on bereavement
or emergency leave. Similarly, where no reason was given for the adjournment, it was
suggested by court staff that there are several of other reasons such as:
the size of the list on any given day could not facilitate active progression
of all matters;
the defendant had not yet settled the issue of legal representation;
a request for adjournment by either the prosecution or the defence, as
either party may not be ready to proceed or may be unavailable due to
other court commitments; and
the unavailability of probation reports, medical reports or reports from the
Forensic Sciences Centre.
It has also been pointed out that where ten day remand issues are being dealt with, no
reasons are usually recorded for the adjournment if parties are not ready to proceed.
48
One of the effects of frequent adjournments can be seen in research conducted by
the research division of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service. This result of this
research was presented at a meeting of a multi-disciplinary committee. It revealed that
the attendance of police officers at court where matters are continuously adjourned has
led to a loss of considerable man-hours. The complaint expressed by the police service at
various forums is that while officers must attend court as a part of the criminal justice
process, the fight on crime suffers a serious blow when officers, who are familiar with the
―players‖ operating in the various crime ―hot spots‖, are not available to detect and
prevent crime, as a result of their attendance to court duties. It has been asserted that if
matters go on when scheduled and officers can assist the court and quickly move on to
other cases then adjournments due to non-appearance of complainants will decrease.
Time to Disposition
In viewing disposals that took place during the selected time frame 665 matters
were disposed. Of these 19.5% were disposed the same day, 17.5% within one month and
8.1% three months. Overall 51.8% of these matters were disposed within six months of
filing. However, 14.1% took between six and twelve months to be disposed, 19.9%
between one and two years, and 13.9% took two years and more to be disposed.
49
Table 8. Time taken to Dispose of Matters
TIME TO DISPOSITION TOTAL PERCENT
CUMMULTIVE
PERCENT
Same Day 132 19.4 19.4
Less Than 1 month 117 17.2 36.6
1 - 3 months 54 7.9 44.5
3 - 6 months 47 6.9 51.4
6 - 12 months 96 14.1 65.5
1 - 2 years 134 19.7 85.2
Over 2 years 93 13.7 98.9
Not Applicable 8 1.1 100
TOTAL 681 100 100
In looking at the major offences 31.3% of indictable matters were disposed on the
same day of filing. Overall 63.1% of these matters were disposed of within six months
however 19.7% took two or more years to be disposed.
On the other hand in the case of summary matters 65.4% were disposed of within
six months with 30.9% being disposed on the same day and 9.9% taking two years or
more to be disposed (Table 10). The court currently has no official standards with regard
to the percentage of matters that should be disposed of within a certain period from the
date of initiation. The widely accepted American Bar Association Time Standards32
for
felony cases state that 90% of felonies should be disposed within 120 days, 98% within
180 days and 100% within one year and for misdemeanour cases 90% in 30 days and
100% in 90 days.
An analysis of the case processing times for indictable matters show that
approximately 61.1% of these matters were disposed within 180 days when compared
with a 98% goal set by the ABA for felony cases. Summary matters had a 46.9%
32
See Note 16 supra.
50
disposal rate within 30 days while traffic matters achieved only 21.8% disposal within the
same period when compared with the 90% time to disposition standard set by the ABA
for the 30 day period.
Table 9. Matters disposed between 1/08/2005 and 31/07/2006 by time to dispose
NO OF MAJOR
OFFENCES TOTAL TOTAL %
SAME
DAY < 1 MTH
1 - 3
MTHS
3 - 6
MTHS
6 - 12
MTHS
1 - 2
YEARS
OVER 2
YEARS N / A
Indictable Matters 232 100.0 31.3 21.5 5.6 4.7 6.0 11.2 19.7 0.0
Summary Matters 81 100.0 30.9 16.0 13.6 4.9 19.8 4.9 9.9 0.0
Traffic Matters 278 100.0 5.7 16.1 7.9 7.9 16.8 34.4 10.4 0.7
Other 74 100.0 21.3 12.0 10.7 10.7 22.7 9.3 13.3 0.0
TOTAL 665 100.0 19.5 17.5 8.1 6.7 14.1 19.9 13.9 0.3
Traffic matters tended to take a longer time to be disposed of. Only 5.7% were
disposed of on the same day of filing and 37.6% within six months. A substantial
proportion, 34.4% took between one year and two years to be disposed, while 10.4% took
two or more years to be disposed. For other matters, which were mainly private
complaints 54.7% were dealt with within six months.
Chart 8. Time to disposal by type of matter
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Same
day
< 1
mth
1< 3
mth
3<6
mth
6<12
mth
1<2
yrs
2+ yrs
Pe
rcen
t
Indictable Matters
Summary Matters
Traffic Matters
Other
51
Of the 333 matters initiated and disposed of within the period reviewed, 38.7%
were dealt with on the same day and about 94.5% within six months. For Indictable
matters, the corresponding proportions were 49.0% and 95.6%, while for Summary
matters they were 53.2% and 97.9% respectively.
As was observed with the previous set of data traffic matters took a slightly longer
time to be disposed. Only 16.0% was disposed on the same day. However, a further
45.0% was disposed in less that one month. In the case of other matters 97.4% were dealt
within six months (Table10).
Table 10. Matters filed between 1/08/2005 and 31/07/2006 by time to dispose
NO. OF MAJOR
OFFENCES TOTAL TOTAL %
SAME
DAY < 1 MTH
1 - 3
MTHS
3 - 6
MTHS
6 - 12
MTHS
1 - 2
YEARS
OVER 2
YEARS N / A
Indictable Matters 147 100.0 49.0 32.0 8.8 4.8 3.4 0.0 0.0 2.0
Summary Matters 47 100.0 53.2 25.5 19.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Traffic Matters 100 100.0 16.0 45.0 17.0 12.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
Other 39 100.0 41.0 23.1 20.5 12.8 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL 333 100.0 38.7 33.9 14.1 7.2 4.5 0.0 0.0 1.5
52
Table 11. Percentage Distribution of Methods of Disposal by Type of Matter
HL – Hard Labour
S - Simple imprisonment
PF - No prima facie case made out
DPP –Director of Public Prosecution
NEO – No evidence offered
NAC – Non-appearance of complainant
WOP – For Want of Prosecution
METHOD OF DISPOSAL TOTAL INDICTABLE SUMMARY TRAFFIC OTHER
Trial
Not Guilty 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0
Guilty & Fined 2.5 2.1 2.5 3.1 1.3
Guilty & Sent HL 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.0 5.3
Guilty & Sent. S 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.0 0.0
Reprim. & Disch 1.8 1.7 0.0 1.4 5.3
Hearing
Fined 37.2 33.1 28.4 47.9 18.7
Prison (HL) 3.1 6.3 6.2 0.3 0.0
Prison (S) 1.5 2.9 1.2 0.0 2.7
Bonded 2.8 4.6 4.9 0.0 5.3
Probation 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.0 0.0
Reprimand. & Discharged 1.0 1.3 2.5 0.7 0.0
Other
To Stand Trial in Assizes 0.9 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Discharged no (Indictable) 3.8 9.6 1.2 0.0 2.7
Discharged DPP 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dismissed NEO 1.3 1.3 3.7 0.3 2.7
Dismissed NAC 11.2 7.9 16.0 11.9 13.3
Dismissed WOP 0.6 0.4 1.2 0.0 2.7
Dismissed (Summary) 24.1 15.1 23.5 29.0 34.7
Committed to a home 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Stated 5.6 7.9 4.9 3.8 5.3
Undefined 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
53
Court Assessment
The following selected responses to the court assessment questionnaire reveal the
perceptions of Magistrates, Staff, Administration, Prosecutors, and Defence Attorneys
concerning: Leadership, Goals, Information and Communication, Caseflow Management
Procedures, Judicial Commitment, Staff Involvement, Education and Training,
Mechanisms for Accountability and Backlog Reduction/Inventory Control. While the
total number of useable surveys are very small, the perceptions reported below provide
perspective about current practices and needed improvements in the ability of the
Magistrates‘ Court to manage the court‘s caseload.
Leadership
Question 5. The Senior Magistrate of the district has established and/or
endorsed the Court's case-processing time standards.
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor
Area
Court Other Stakeholders
No 3 2 0 1 1 7
100.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0% 20.0% 53.8%
Somewhat quiet support 0 0 1 0 1 2
0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 20.0% 15.4%
Quiet support, within
the court 0 1 0 0 1 2
0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 15.4%
Somewhat public
support 0 0 0 0 2 2
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 15.4%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In response to the statement: The Senior Magistrate of the district has established and/or
endorsed the Court's case-processing time standards, seven or 53.8% of the respondents
to the survey said no, which was the modal answer. Each of the other possible answers
54
somewhat quiet support; quiet support, within the court and somewhat public support
represented two or 15.4% of the responses to Question 5.
Question 41. The Senior Magistrate meets with the Magistrates in their
districts to review the status of pending caseloads and discuss ways of dealing
with common problems.
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor
Area
Court Other Stakeholders
No response 0 2 0 0 1 3
0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 23.1%
No 3 0 0 1 1 5
100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 20.0% 38.5%
Rarely 0 1 1 0 0 2
0.0% 33.3% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.4%
Occasionally 0 0 0 0 3 3
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 23.1%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In response to the statement: The Senior Magistrate meets with the Magistrates in their
districts to review the status of pending caseloads and discuss ways of dealing with
common problems, five or 38.5% of the respondents to the survey said no, which was
again the modal answer. ‗Occasionally‘ represented three or 23.1% of the responses to
Question 41 and another three or 23.1% of the respondents to the survey did not offer a
response to this question.
55
Goals
Question 1. The Court has adopted time standards that establish expected
outside limits on case-processing time from filing to disposition, for major
categories of cases.
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor
Area
Court Other Stakeholders
No response 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
No standards or
guidelines 3 2 0 1 1 7
100.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0% 20.0% 53.8%
Informal guidelines
exist 0 1 1 0 2 4
0.0% 33.3% 100.0% 0.0% 40.0% 30.8%
Yes- written standards
have been adopted and
published
0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In response to the statement: The Court has adopted time standards that establish
expected outside limits on case-processing time from filing to disposition, for major
categories of cases, seven or 53.8% of the respondents to the survey said that there were
No standards or guidelines, the modal answer. ‗Informal guidelines exist‘ represented
four or 30.8% of the responses to Question 1.
Question 29. The Court has time standards/guidelines governing the time
interval between each major stage in the litigation process.
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor
Area
Court Other Stakeholders
No response 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
No 2 2 1 1 3 9
66.7% 66.7% 100.0% 100.0% 60.0% 69.2%
Guidelines cover some
but not all intervals 1 1 0 0 0 2
33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.4%
Yes 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
56
In response to the statement: The Court has time standards/guidelines governing the time
interval between each major stage in the litigation process; nine or 69.2% of the
respondents to the survey said No, which was the modal answer. ‗Guidelines cover some
but not all intervals‘ represented two or 15.4% of the responses to Question 29. Only one
or 7.7% of the respondents to the survey said ‗Yes‘ to this question.
Information
Question 2. Magistrates who have responsibility for all/part of the caseload
regularly receive management information reports that enable them to know
the number of pending cases for which they are responsible, the distribution
of these cases by age since filing, and status of each case
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor
Area
Court Other Stakeholders
No response 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
No 3 2 0 1 2 8
100.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0% 40.0% 61.5%
Little information
provided regularly 0 0 1 0 0 1
0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7%
Some information
provided regularly 0 1 0 0 2 3
0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 23.1%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In response to the statement: Magistrates who have responsibility for all/part of the
caseload regularly receive m'gt info reports that enable them to know the no. of pending
cases for which they are responsible, the dist. of these cases by age since filing, and
status of each case; eight or 61.5% of the respondents to the survey said No, which was
once more the modal answer. ‗Some information provided regularly‘ represented three or
23.1% of the responses to Question 2. Only one or 7.7% of the respondents to the survey
offered no response to this question.
57
Question 35. The Court regularly produces reports that show trends in
filings, dispositions, pending caseloads and case processing times.
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor
Area
Court Other Stakeholders
No response 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
No 2 2 0 0 0 4
66.7% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.8%
Rare trend analysis 0 0 1 0 0 1
0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7%
Some trend analysis 1 1 0 1 2 5
33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0% 40.0% 38.5%
Often analysis of trends 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Yes-regular analysis of
trends in all of these
areas
0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In response to the statement: The Court regularly produces reports that show trends in
filings, dispositions, pending caseloads and case processing times; five or 38.5% of the
respondents to the survey said ‗Some trend analysis‘, which was the modal answer. ‗No‘
represented four or 30.8% of the responses to Question 35. Only one or 7.7% of the
respondents to the survey offered no response to this question.
Communications
Question 11. There are published policies and procedures governing the
caseflow process, readily available to Magistrates, the Court's staff and bar
members
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor Area Court Other Stakeholders
No 3 3 0 1 3 10
100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 60.0% 76.9%
Exist for every area 0 0 1 0 1 2
0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 20.0% 15.4%
Exist for some areas 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
58
In response to the statement: There are published policies and procedures governing the
caseflow process, readily available to Magistrates, the Court's staff and bar members;
eight or 76.9% of the respondents to the survey said No, which was the modal answer.
‗Exists for every area‘ represented three or 15.4% of the responses to Question 11. Only
one or 7.7% of the respondents to the survey indicated they ‗exist for some areas‘.
Question 43. Mechanisms for obtaining the suggestions of Court staff about
caseflow management problems and potential improvements exist and are
used by the court's leaders
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor
Area
Court Other Stakeholders
No 3 2 1 0 5 11
100.0% 66.7% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 84.6%
Rarely 0 0 0 1 0 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 7.7%
Sometimes 0 1 0 0 0 1
0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In response to the statement: Mechanisms for obtaining the suggestions of Court staff
about caseflow management problems and potential improvements exist and are used by
the court's leaders; 11 or 84.6% of the respondents to the survey said No, which was
overwhelmingly the modal answer to question 43. The other possible answers; ‗Rarely
and ‗Sometimes‘ drew on response or 7.7% each.
59
Caseflow Management Proceedures
Question 4. The Court counts every case as pending from the date that the defendant
has been arrested or a summons is issued.
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor
Area
Court Other Stakeholders
No response 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Very few categories of
cases 0 0 1 1 0 2
0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 15.4%
More than some
categories of cases 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Yes 3 3 0 0 3 9
100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 69.2%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In response to the statement: The Court counts every case as pending from the date that
the defendant has been arrested or a summons is issued, nine or 69.2% of the
respondents to the survey said Yes, which was the modal answer. ‗Very few categories of
cases‘ represented two or 15.4% of the responses to Question 4. Only one or 7.7% of the
respondents to the survey offered no response to this question.
Question 60. How frequently are cases that have been scheduled for trial or
hearing adjourned because there are more ready cases than can be dealt with
on the scheduled date?
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor
Area
Court Other Stakeholders
Very frequently 1 0 0 0 1 2
33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 15.4%
Frequently 0 2 1 0 1 4
0.0% 66.7% 100.0% 0.0% 20.0% 30.8%
Occasionally 0 1 0 1 1 3
0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0% 20.0% 23.1%
Rarely 2 0 0 0 2 4
66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 30.8%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
60
In response to the question: How frequently are cases that have been scheduled for trial
or hearing adjourned because there are more ready cases than can be dealt with on the
scheduled date? Four or 30.8% of the respondents to the survey said ‗Frequently‘.
Further, ‗Rarely‘ also represented four or 30.8% of the responses to Question 60. Two or
15.4% of the respondents to the survey said ‗Very Frequently‘.
Judicial Commitment
Question 6. There is a commonly shared commitment, on the part of the
magistrates, to the principle that the Court has responsibility for ensuring
expeditious case processing.
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor
Area
Court Other Stakeholders
No response 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Very few Magistrates
are committed 0 0 0 1 0 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 7.7%
Some Magistrates are
commited 3 2 1 0 1 7
100.0% 66.7% 100.0% 0.0% 20.0% 53.8%
Many Magistrates are
committed 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Virtually all Magistrates
are committed 0 1 0 0 2 3
0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 23.1%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In response to the statement: There is a commonly shared commitment, on the part of the
magistrates, to the principle that the Court has responsibility for ensuring expeditious
case processing; seven or 53.8% of the respondents to the survey said Some Magistrates
are committed, which was the modal answer. It is interesting to note here that all three of
the responding Magistrates fell into this category. ‗Virtually all Magistrates are
committed‘ represented three or 23.1% of the responses to Question 6. Only one or 7.7%
of the respondents to the survey offered no response to this question.
61
Question 38. The Magistrates recognize the need to monitor the pace of
litigation and are actively committed to seeing the court meet standards for
expeditious case processing.
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor
Area
Court Other Stakeholders
No response 0 1 0 0 1 2
0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 15.4%
No 0 0 1 0 0 1
0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7%
Few Magistrates
recognized the need 0 0 0 1 1 2
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 20.0% 15.4%
Some Magistrates
recognize the need 1 2 0 0 1 4
33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 30.8%
Most Magistrates
recognize the need 0 0 0 0 2 2
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 15.4%
Yes 2 0 0 0 0 2
66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.4%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In response to the statement: The Magistrates recognize the need to monitor the pace of
litigation and are actively committed to seeing the court meet standards for expeditious
case processing; four or 30.8% of the respondents to the survey said Some Magistrates
recognized the need‘, which was the modal answer. It is interesting to note here that only
one of the responding Magistrates fell into this category and the other two said ‗Yes‘.
62
Staff involvement
Question 19. Judicial support staff notify the Magistrates of cases that have
been pending for long periods of time and cases in which there have been
repeated adjournments.
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor
Area
Court Other Stakeholders
No 3 2 1 0 4 10
100.0% 66.7% 100.0% 0.0% 80.0% 76.9%
Some 0 1 0 1 0 2
0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 15.4%
Yes 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In response to the statement: Judicial support staff notify the Magistrates of cases that
have been pending for long periods of time and cases in which there have been repeated
adjournments; 10 or 76.9% of the respondents to the survey said No, which was once
more the modal answer. ‗Some‘ represented two or 15.4% of the responses to Question
19. Only one or 7.7% of the respondents said ‗Yes‘ to this question.
Question 28. The Court has a central staff unit that regularly monitors the
caseload, identifies problems (e.g. pending caseload increasing; certain cases
taking unduly long), and provides recommendations for action to the chief
magistrate or senior magistrate.
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor
Area
Court Other Stakeholders
No 3 1 0 1 4 9
100.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0% 80.0% 69.2%
Very few 0 2 1 0 0 3
0.0% 66.7% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23.1%
Some central staff
monitoring occasional
recommendations
0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
63
In response to the statement: The Court has a central staff unit that regularly monitors
the caseload, identifies problems ( e.g. pending caseload increasing; certain cases taking
unduly long), and provides recommendations for action to the chief magistrate or senior
magistrate; 9 or 69.2% of the respondents to the survey said No, which was once more
the modal answer. ‗Very few‘ represented three or 23.1% of the responses to Question
28. Only one or 7.7% of the respondents said ‗Some central staff monitoring occasional
recommendations‘ to this question.
Educational Training
Question 8. The Court regularly conducts training on caseflow management
principles and techniques for Magistrates and staff.
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor
Area
Court Other Stakeholders
No training 1 1 0 0 3 5
33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 38.5%
Very little training
conducted 0 1 1 0 1 3
0.0% 33.3% 100.0% 0.0% 20.0% 23.1%
Some training
conducted irregularly 2 1 0 1 1 5
66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0% 20.0% 38.5%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In response to the statement: The Court regularly conducts training on caseflow
management principles and techniques for Magistrates and staff; 5 or 38.5% of the
respondents to the survey said ‗No training‘, ‗Very little training conducted‘ represented
three or 23.1% of the responses to Question 8. Five or 38.5% of the respondents said
‗Some training conducted irregularly‘ to this question.
64
Question 30. The Court has a standard orientation programme for new
Magistrates and new staff members, in which the Court's policies and
expectations regarding caseflow management are covered thoroughly.
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor Area Court Other Stakeholders
No 2 2 0 1 3 8
66.7% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0% 60.0% 61.5%
Very little during
orientation 1 1 1 0 0 3
33.3% 33.3% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23.1%
Some orientation 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Yes through orientation 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In response to the statement: The Court has a standard orientation programme for new
Magistrates and new staff members, in which the Court's policies and expectations
regarding caseflow management are covered thoroughly; 8 or 61.5% of the respondents
to the survey said No, which was the modal answer. ‗Very little during orientation‘
represented three or 23.1% of the responses to Question 30. Only one or 7.7% of the
respondents said ‗Yes through orientation‘ to this question.
65
Mechanisms for Accountability
Question 9. The Court has established and uses a system evaluating the
effectiveness of Magistrates in handling the portions of the court's total
caseload for which they have responsibility.
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor Area Court Other Stakeholders
No response 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
No 3 2 0 1 1 7
100.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0% 20.0% 53.8%
Little criteria exists 0 0 1 0 1 2
0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 20.0% 15.4%
Some criteria exists 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Yes 0 1 0 0 1 2
0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 15.4%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In response to the statement: The Court has established and uses a system evaluating the
effectiveness of Magistrates in handling the portions of the court's total caseload for
which they have responsibility; seven or 53.8% of the respondents to the survey said No,
which was again the modal answer. ‗Two or 15.4% of the respondents said ‗Little criteria
exists‘ to Question 9. Only two or 15.4% of the respondents said ‗Yes‘ to this question.
Question 45. Magistrates whose performance in managing the caseloads for
which they are responsible is below acceptable standards are provided with
assistance and receive negative sanctions if their performance does not
improve.
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor Area Court Other Stakeholders
No response 0 2 0 0 2 4
0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 30.8%
No 3 1 0 1 2 7
100.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0% 40.0% 53.8%
Rarely 0 0 1 0 0 1
0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7%
Sometimes 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
66
In response to the statement: Magistrates whose performance in managing the caseloads
for which they are responsible is below acceptable standards are provided with
assistance and receive negative sanctions if their performance does not improve; seven
or 53.8% of the respondents to the survey said No, which was again the modal answer. It
is again interesting to note that all three of the Magistrates that participated said ‗No‘ four
or 30.8% of the respondents to Question 45 did not offer a response to this question.
Backlog Reduction / Inventory Control
Question 10. The Court has a few or no cases pending for more than the
maximum length of time established by its own case-processing time
standards or alternatively the ABA case-processing time standards
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor
Area
Court Other Stakeholders
No response 2 1 0 0 1 4
66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 30.8%
Don't know 0 1 0 1 3 5
0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0% 60.0% 38.5%
Many cases than the
court's(or ABA's) time
standards
1 1 0 0 0 2
33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.4%
About 30% are older 0 0 1 0 0 1
0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7%
No cases or only a few
are over the standards 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In response to the statement: The Court has a few or no cases pending for more than the
maximum length of time established by its own case-processing time standards or
alternatively the ABA case-processing time standards; five or 38.5% of the respondents
to the survey said ‗Don‘t Know‘, which was once more the modal answer. ‗No Response‘
67
represented four or 30.8% of the responses to Question 10. Only one or 7.7% of the
respondents said ‗No cases or only a few are over the standards‘ to this question.
Question 46. The Court follows established procedures to identify inactive
cases and bring them to disposition.
Type of respondent
Total Magistrate COP Prosecutor
Area
Court Other Stakeholders
No 2 1 0 1 3 7
66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0% 60.0% 53.8%
Rare reviews and purges
of inactive cases 0 0 1 0 0 1
0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7%
Occasional reviews and
purges of inactive cases 0 2 0 0 1 3
0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 23.1%
Often there are reviews
and purges of inactive
cases
0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 7.7%
Yes-regular reviews are
done and purge
procedures followed
1 0 0 0 0 1
33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7%
Total 3 3 1 1 5 13
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In response to the statement: The Court follows established procedures to identify
inactive cases and bring them to disposition; seven or 53.8% of the respondents to the
survey said ‗No‘, which was once more the modal answer. ‗Occasional reviews and
purges of inactive cases‘ represented three or 23.1% of the responses to Question 46.
Only one or 7.7% of the respondents said ‗Yes-regular reviews are done and purge
procedures followed‘ to this question.
68
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study confirms that the current performance of the Trinidad Tobago
Magistrates Courts falls far below widely accepted case processing time standards.
Clearly there is a culture of adjournments and delay that affects the ability of the
magistrates‘ court to effectively process criminal cases. Without a doubt adjournments
contribute to delay in the Magistrates Courts system wide. Further the courts are not
organized or resourced to actively manage cases that are brought before them. In
addition, the responsibility for ensuring the readiness of parties to the court matters falls
under the jurisdiction of agencies external to the court and the progress of the cases is
currently dependent to a large extent to their driving of the process.
The Adjournment Culture
The data in Table 7 highlights the fact that a significant number, 37.9%, of the
sample matters were addressed at the first hearing and without any adjournments.
However, the effect of adjourning the remaining matters on more that two occasions has
a compounding effect on the lists of magistrates given the number of times the matters
subsequently come up for hearing. While 57.3% of matters sampled had two or less
adjournments, this occupied approximately 17% of the courts time. Those matters which
had between three and nine adjournments (29,2%), occupied approximately 30% of the
courts time, while those matters, which had ten or more adjournments (13.5%), occupied
approximately 53% of the courts time. A reduction in adjournments can allow the court
more time to actively manage its cases and allow for the conduct of trials and preliminary
hearings. With the utilization of the Audio Digital Court Recording System at trials and
69
preliminary enquiries, the non-value added activities, which currently occupy the courts
time, would give way for more meaningful case events.
The case tracking data also reveal that 52.6% of the reasons documented for the
adjournment of matters relate to the non-appearance of parties. A further review of
Table 12 reveals that 9.6% of indictable matters were dismissed due to constant
adjournments while 20.9% of summary matters fall under this similar fate. The dismissal
of 13.1% of all matters surveyed could be attributed to the delays experienced in the
system. The percentage of dismissals due to frustration of the court is high and warrants
further investigation, reporting and correction.
The unavailability of documented information with regard to reasons for
adjournments reveal the need for the court to ensure that more detailed recording of
events takes place to allow for analysis and identification of problems in the processing
of cases.
Caseflow Management and Case Processing
A review of the current workflow and case progression in the Magistracy,
together with the answers to questions on goals and leadership, highlight the need to
include time standards for the conduct of various activities and to refine the construction
of events that take place to ensure that meaningful action takes place at each stage of the
process. Proper scheduling of cases together with efficient notification procedures may
assist the court in having more manageable court lists on a daily basis.
While there is agreement that some magistrates are committed to ensuring
expeditious case processing, the analysis of survey questions 1, 2, 11, 29, 35, 43 show the
courts‘ inability to set and communicate goals and share information internally and
70
externally about performance expectation and results. Without the setting of goals and
performance standards the court will continue to be too responsive to external parties and
facilitate adjournment requests. Consideration should be given to abolishing the current
practice of having all parties to a matter be present in court at 9:00 a.m. and matters
should be short scheduled in specific time slots during the day.
The existing legislation for processing indictable and summary matters currently
provide for most administrative procedures. The inclusion of administrative provisions in
legislation makes it cumbersome for the court to make changes to procedures that it may
want to implement. This impacts the development and implementation of new and
needed software and information technology and generally constrains thinking about case
processing improvements.
Court Organization and Leadership
Although the target group for the court assessment survey was small, the results
highlight the need for the survey to be repeated for each court location. The survey
should be conducted in a workshop setting where the results can be interrogated more
closely and discussion held with the survey participants. The analysis of the responses
received to questions 1, 5, 29 and 41 from the court assessment questionnaire speaks to
the lack of leadership and the non-existence of standards and goals in the magistrates‘
courts.
In addition, there seems to be little collaboration between staff and magistrates
with regard to the management of the courts‘ caseload and other areas of the courts
operations when one examines questions 19, 28 and 43.
71
There is general agreement that the level of accountability by the court, for its
operation, is very low and this is one of the areas that must also be addressed. It is
expected that the increase in the production and reporting of court statistics and the
introduction of court performance measurement will provide the mechanism for
accountability and collaboration between the judicial officers and the court support staff.
Court Support Services
The non-existence of a Case Management Information System has hindered the
ability of the court to properly determine its pending caseload and actively manage the
cases initiated. The current initiatives of the Department of Court Administration with
regard to developing the court‘s research capabilities and information technology should
be supported and developed. The data provided in this study could not have been
collected and presented in the timeframe required without the additional staff recently
recruited for the Court Statistical Unit. The limited introduction of audio digital
recording technology in the magistrates‘ courts has also thus far also yielded positive
results.
The low rating given by participants to the education and training opportunities
raises concern given the number of case management education programmes that are
conducted annually. This must be explored further to ascertain whether the programme
content is meeting the needs of the court system, whether the mode of delivery is
effective and whether exposure is given to the right target group.
72
RECOMMENDATION 1: EARLY AND CONTINOUS CONTROL
A proposed case flow was produced in collaboration with a committee formed to
implement measures to expedite the processing of special high profile criminal trials, and
which includes all stakeholders in the criminal justice sector. This flow is reproduced
below and is recommended for adoption to ensure early and continuous control by the
court and as a basis for setting realistic timeframes between events. The introduction of
the three main events is intended to produce earlier case disposition by ensuring that
discovery takes place early in the process, documents are exchanged and pre-trial issues
and objections are identified. It is proposed that from initiation to sentencing or
committal no more than nine months should elapse.
Proposed flow for criminal matters in the Magistrates’ Court
1. INITIAL APEARANCE
- duty attorney and duty prosecutor appear
- issues of election, bail and representation addressed
Summary Offence Indictable Offence
Plead Guilty
- Sentencing
Plead Not Guilty
- Set questionnaire schedule
- Set date for Pre-Trial Conference
- Set questionnaire schedule
- Set date for Pre-Trial Conference
2. PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE
Questionnaire reviewed
Pre-trial issues
- Bail
- Disclosure
- Severance
- Abuse of Process (autrefois/duplicity etc)
- Point in limine
- Other issues or applications
EVENTS BETWEEN INITIAL APPEARANCE AND PRE-TRIAL
CONFERENCE
- Obtain all reports (medical, forensics, tracing etc.)
- Service of witness statements *
- Notice of objection (s)
- Filing and exchange of questionnaires
3. TRIAL 3. PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY HEARING
2. PRE HEARING CONFERENCE
Questionnaire reviewed
Pre-trial issues
- Bail
- Disclosure
- Severance
- Abuse of Process (autrefois/duplicity etc)
- Point in limine
- Other issues or applications
EVENTS BETWEEN INITIAL APPEARANCE AND PRE-HEARING
CONFERENCE
Obtain all reports (medical, forensics, tracing etc.)
- Service of witness statements *
- Notice of objection (s)
- Filing and exchange of questionnaires
73
RECOMMENDATION 2: STANDARDIZED PROCEDURES,
OPERATING GUIDELINES AND DEVELOP CASE MANAGEMENT
RULES
It is important that the Judiciary introduce standardized procedures and rules to
regulate the progress of criminal matters in the Magistrates‘ Court. These procedures
should provide for:
realistic case processing time standards and goals;
early court intervention and court control of the process by creating
meaningful court events – early disclosure, exchange of documents and
filing of objections;
strict adjournment policies;
case assignment and court calendaring policies;
case centred records management systems
access to the court outside of the formal courtroom to address applications
for administrative decisions affecting the case to be made outside of the
formal court – through the use of information and communication
technology; and
the recording of pertinent data to enable the court to properly manage
cases.
Along with this initiative it will be necessary to develop, implement and monitor,
standardize court forms, provide desk procedure manuals, bench books and other court
policy documents. An existing committee is in the process of developing draft rules for
special high profile criminal matters and it is recommended that a committee comprising
74
magistrates, staff, administrators and key stakeholders in the wider magistrates‘ court
discuss and refine these rules to be utilised as a part of the pilot project referred to below.
RECOMMENDATION 3: BUILDINGS AND TECHNOLOGY
INFRASTRUCTURE
The Department of Court Administration must further refine the requirements for
the magistrates‘ court case management information system, customise and introduce the
Judicial Enforcement Management System (JEMS), the Case Management Information
Software.33
The software must allow for inter-agency database collaboration and the
court must provide the supporting communication infrastructure. The court must also fine
tune the procedures for use and operation of this software in collaboration with the Audio
Digital Court Recording System.
The use of video conferencing facilities should be explored for use between courts
and the prison to deal with issues of bail and continuous remand hearings instead of
requiring that all parties attend court every ten days, within which time case preparation
does not usually occur. This system could also accommodate witness who may not be
able to attend court due to their absence from the jurisdiction.
The current programme of court refurbishment should be expedited and, strategies
employed to ensure the provision of purpose built magistrates court facilities.
RECOMENDATION 4: REGULAR INFORMATION REPORTS
The court must define early the statistical reports that may be required by the
various categories of judicial administrators to make evidence based decisions. The
33
Judicial Enforcement Management Software (JEMS) has been acquired for the Magistracy and is in the
process of being customised
75
inclusion of the fields of information which would allow administrators to access critical
data to evaluate all areas of the court performance standards and individual performance
should be addressed in the case management information software. The inclusion of
these fields for data entry would encourage proper recording of vital information on the
progression of cases throughout the court system
Periodic reports on the performance of the individual courts as well as the entire
district should be provided for the review of the local district court management and
review committee. This information should be published on an annual basis showing any
improvements made in the processing of cases, the success of process improvement
measures and other measures to be introduced.
RECOMMENDATION 5: SPECIALIST STAFF POSITIONS,
SYSTEMATIC TRAINING AND HUMAN RESOURCE CAPACITY
BUILDING
It is necessary to revisit the support staffing structure of the magistracy to create
positions that reflect the courts‘ control of the progress of cases in the system. The
change of designation of court office personnel from Clerks to Case Management
Officers, Liaison Officers, Monitoring and Consequential Activities Officers for example,
can create that distinction. It is recommended that a rigorous recruitment, orientation and
training exercise be conducted to ensure the best fit of persons for the positions. Given
that a change in culture is being proposed, it may be necessary to create a mix of existing
and new employees with the support system to reinforce new behavioural and operational
procedures and to encourage the new culture of efficiency and accountability.
76
A structured programme for recruitment and training, legal and judicial education
and support programmes for magistrate, staff and participants in the criminal justice
sector should be developed.
The Judicial Education Institute of Trinidad and Tobago should be engaged to
plan and facilitate a comprehensive training programme over the next year to re-orient
the magistracy on its new role and function of controlling the pace of litigation in the
criminal justice sector. The training programme should be continuous and workshops
developed to include new procedures and processes, use of new technology, caseflow
management practices, court control, leadership and administration, court performance
standards and setting and maintaining case processing time-standards,. A mixture of
continuing education and practice including exposure to case management, orientation to
the magistracy and its processes, and social context and communication training is
necessary.
The magistrate should also be prepared for the basic elements of adjudicatory
chairmanship, the elements of court orders. The introduction of new procedures, staffing
and technology present an excellent opportunity to engage the entire magisterial
establishment in retooling, retraining and preparation for the journey of continuing
education.
RECOMMENDATION 6: DISTRICT COURT LEADERSHIP TEAM AND
PERFORMACNE REVIEW COUNCIL
It is recommended that a position of Court Manager be created in each district to
see to the day to day management of the non-judicial administration of the court and that
77
this functionary work closely with the Magistracy Registrar34
and sit on a local court
district leadership team with the Senior Magistrate for the district, who would function
somewhat as an ―administrative judge‖. This team should also sit with the various
justice system partners periodically as a performance review council chaired by chaired
by the Senior Magistrate. The Senior Magistrate would work closely with the Magistracy
Registrar and Court Manager to ensure the proper administration of justice in that local
court district. This leadership team should have a reporting function to the Court
Executive Administrator, Chief Magistrate and the Chief Justice and be responsible for
conducting a case management review on a quarterly basis.
The council should have regular interaction as needed to de-bottleneck problems
that are identified in the processing of criminal matters in the district.
RECOMMENDATION 7: PILOT PROJECT
It is recommended that the proposed caseflow management initiatives described
above be tested in a well-resourced pilot project to be set up in the Scarborough
Magistrates Court. It is expected that the current caseload for this court and its distinct
culture will allow the judiciary to adequately test new rules, systems, procedures,
technology, administrative structures, staffing and training requirements without much
displacement to the magistrates‘ court system.
RECOMMENDATION 8: CRIMINAL JUSTICE PARTNERSHIP
It is recommended that a dedicated team of senior professionals selected from the
various court and justice sector agencies sit for a nine month period, possibly with
34
The position of Magistracy Registrar is currently being created by the Judiciary to provide legally trained
personnel to perform the legal and judicial administrative functions required in the court office
78
additional specialist expertise to develop an implementation plan, strategies and other
required documentation, e.g. drafts of legislative amendments, to allow for the redesign
of the criminal case processing system at the magistrates‘ court level. The evaluation
results produced from the Pilot Project would inform this redesign.
General
The expressions of dissatisfaction being voiced by the various sectors of the
country with the operation of the criminal justice sector present an excellent opportunity
for change. The introduction of the new rules of procedure, new staffing structures,
information and communication technology, administration and managerial systems,
purpose built buildings and facilities and creation of the communication infrastructure to
allow for effective collaboration between the various stakeholder agencies in the justice
sector can create the enabling environment to change the culture in the magistracy. It is
not expected that the results will occur immediately, but the benefits to be derived from a
well monitored pilot project which has dedicated resources can create the buy in and
enthusiasm for the change that is required.
79
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Bar Association, “Standards Relating to Trial Courts,” 1992 Edition.
Chicago: American Bar Association, 1992.
American Bar Association, “Standards Relating to Court Organisation,” 1974 Edition.
Baar, Carl (1974). "Will the Courts Survive the War on Crime?" The Potential for
Reform of Criminal Justice. Sage, 1974.
Bureau Of Justice Assistance, “Differentiated Case Management: Implementation
Manual”. June 1993.
Caseflow Management Coordinating Committee, “Final Report And Recommendations
To The Michigan Supreme Court”. June 1997.
Deosaran, Ramesh Caribbean Journal of Criminology and Social Psychology. University
Printers. 1998.
Dunlap–Miller, L, “Managing Change In A Criminal Division A Focus On
Decentralization And Team Concept”. Institute for Court Management Court
Executive Development Program Phase III Project. 1996.
Fiadjoe, Albert, Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Developing World Perspective.
Cavendish Publishing, 2004.
Gallas, Geoff "The Conventional Wisdom of State Court Administration: A Critical
Assessment and an Alternative Approach," The Justice System Journal. Spring.
1976.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 1978
Mahoney, B, Holly Bakke and Antoinette Bonacci-Miller, Criminal Caseflow
Management Improvement in the Hudson County Superior Court (Jersey City,
NJ), May 1989- January 1992. National Center For State Courts. 1992.
NACM Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines: “What Court Leaders Need to Know
and Be Able to Do”, Court Manager 18, no. 2
National Centre for State Courts. “CourTools, National Center for State Courts”, 2005
Ostrom, Brian J., and Roger A. Hanson, (1999). Efficiency, Timeliness and Quality: A
New Perspective from Nine State Criminal Trial Courts. National Center for State
Courts.
80
Pound, Roscoe, “The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of
Justice,” American Bar Association Reports 29, 1906.
―Reducing Time To Disposition In Criminal Cases By Consolidating Events And
Reducing Appearances‖. Inloes, James E., Phase III Project May 4, 1993.
―Report Of the Committee Established to Consider, (i) Measures Which Can Be Adopted
to Shorten Criminal Trials in the Assize And Magistrates’ Courts, and (ii) A
Proposal for Setting Up A Remand Court Within the Vicinity Of the Golden Grove
Prison”. February 2003.
Simon, Herbert "Some Problems of Administrative theory," from Administrative
Behaviour, Third Edition. Free Press. 1976.
Steelman, David, John Goerdt and James Mc Millan, Caseflow Management: The Heart
of Court Management in the New Millennium. National Center For State Courts.
2002.
―Tourism Development Corporation: Country Profile‖.
http://www.tdc.co.tt/ country_profile.htm; accessed February 15, 2007.
―Tourism Development Corporation: Country Profile‖.
http://www.tdc.co.tt/ our_people.htm; accessed February 15, 2007;
Vision 2020 – Report of the Administration of Justice Sub-Committee Report 2004
Zoller, Norman E. ―Courts Technical Assistance Study Guide: Caseflow Analysis‖.
Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. 1980.
81
Criminal Proceedings:
1. Summary Trial; or
2. Trial on Indictment
APPENDIX I
Police conduct investigations and submit Case Docket containing evidence (statements and certificates of analysis etc.) to the Office
of the Director of Public prosecutions (DPP), where the evidence is reviewed and a decision taken to charge or defer for further
investigation. If proceedings have already been instituted, the evidence is reviewed to determine whether the charge is viable and/or
needs to be amended. In exceptional cases, the file is retained and a prosecutor appears at the first hearing.
The Preliminary Enquiry Evidence can be recorded either at the preliminary enquiry or with the use of written statements submitted to the Magistrate (paper
committals) section 16C of the Indictable Offences (Preliminary Enquiry) (Amendment) Act No. 23 of 2005.
Section 16 provides for evidence to be taken in writing by the witnesses apart from each other in the presence of the accused.
Evidence must read over in the presence of accused and signed.
Section 16(4) permits the recording of evidence by electronic audio recording, video recording or Computer Aided Transcription.
The Preliminary Enquiry
The Indictable Offences (Preliminary Enquiry) Act as
amended provides how evidence is to be taken:
With consideration of the evidence
Paper committals
Summary Trial
Offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act & the Firearms
Act are triable either at the Magistrate‘s court or at the High
Court. If the prosecution recommends summary trial and the
accused consents, the Magistrate hears evidence and
adjudicates on innocence or guilt.
S5 Dangerous Drugs Act, 1991 as amended;
S.6 (3) Firearms Act 16:01
Trial on Indictment
Murder 2nd Kidnapping a.re offences triable only on
Indictment Offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act
and the Firearms Act may also be tried 00 Indictment.
Indictable trials consist of two stages:
(a) the preliminary enquiry
{b) trial by jury before a Judge
The Preliminary Enquiry:
Pre hearing issues Applications are made for
{i) Bail
(ii) Disclosure
(iii) Separate hearings
Eligibility for bail is determined by section 5 and 5A of the Bail Act, 1994
The Committal:
Committal proceedings are prepared for submission to the Office of the Director of
Public Prosecutions -
Handwritten depositions must be typed;
Schedule of exhibits prepared; and
Original manuscript together with typed copies submitted to the Office
of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The Decision:
The Magistrate may either -
(1') Commit the accused to stand trial or
(2) Discharge the Accused
Committal proceedings are received and assigned to
an Attorney of the D.P.P for:
1. review of the evidence on deposition
2. review of evidence in Police file
3 preparation of a summary of
evidence and advice recommending:
(a) to refer back for further evidence
where the matter is referred back, the
committal proceeding is re-opened
(b) discontinue /Nolle Prosequi
(c) indictment
The Decision to Indict:
The indictment is drafted, signed and filed at the Criminal Registry of
the High Court
Notice of Cause List Hearing The prosecution is given notice of the date of a cause list hearing. The
State Attorney is obligated to:
Ascertain the availability of witnesses
Ensures pre-trial issues have been attended to e.g. disclosure
Cause List Hearing If both sides are ready the matter is set for trial on a specific date in a
specific High Court.
Flowchart of Criminal Proceedings in the Magistracy
82
Job Description - Clerk of the Peace
Kind of Work
Administrative work directing the functions of a small Magisterial Office or assisting in
directing the functions of a large magisterial office and statutory duties as a Clerk of the
Peace.
Distinguishing Features of Work
An employee in this class is responsible for the administration of a small office of a
Magisterial District or assisting a superior in the administration of a large magisterial
office. Work involves the supervision of a lower level officers engaged in responsible
clerical and statutory functions as well as a small group of employees engaged in clerical
work. The employee also serves as Clerk of the Peace and ex-officio, as a Justice of the
Peace. Work includes giving guidance to members of the public who are without the
benefit of professional legal advice. The statutory duties are performed within the
framework of the laws and the advice of a superior is available in the handling of difficult
problems. Special assignments may be received orally or in writing from a Magistrate or
superior and the work is subject to his general supervision and review.
Examples of Work
Plans, assigns and reviews the work the of a small group of subordinates engaged
in a wide variety of personnel, facial and other related duties in a small
magisterial office; or assists in planning, assigning and reviewing the work of a
large group of subordinate employees in a large magisterial office;
Performs a wide variety of statutory duties as Clerk of the Peace, and Ex-officio
as a Justice of the Peace; signs complaints and issues, summonses and warrants of
arrest; checks and certifies appeals proceedings for transmissions to the Court of
Appeal; fixes and grants bail; keeps custody witnesses confessions;
Interviews members of the public who are unable to hire professional legal advice
and are seeking guidance on problems confronting them, which involve existing
laws; advises them on the nature of the charges and complaints that should be
APPENDIX II
83
filled for hearing in the Court; drafts or directs the drafting of the complaints and
signs them;
As Secretary of the Licensing Committee, performs a variety of statutory
licensing duties under the liquor Licenses Ordinance, the Registration of Clubs
Ordinance and related regulatory licensing laws; and
Performs related work as may be required.
Required Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
Considerable knowledge of government office procedures including personnel,
finance and reporting;
Knowledge of the criminal and civil laws and regulations of the country;
Knowledge of court procedure;
Ability to plan and supervise the work of a small office staff in a Magisterial
District;
Ability to perform duties of a law enforcement nature fearlessly and impartially;
Ability to interpret, express and apply departmental policies and procedures
clearly and to give guidance of a semi-legal nature and;
Ability to establish and maintain effective relationships with other employees and
the public.
Minimum Experience and Training
Considerable experience in court procedures and practices as may have been gained in
the next lower class and training as evidenced by General Certificate of Education
comprising Ordinary Level passes in five subjects; or any equivalent combination of
experience and training.
84
Magistracy Criminal Case Data Collection Form
Question
Number
Description Information
1 Court case number 2 Defendant‘s name
3 Offence for which charged (Most serious charge if more
than one charge)
4 Number of other charges 5 Number of persons charged 6 Date Bail granted, if applicable 7 Date Bail secured, if applicable 8 Original arrest date
mo-day-yr
9 First court appearance
mo-day-yr
10 Date information filed
mo-day-yr
11 Date of hearing on information
mo-day-yr
12 Date case disposed
mo-day-yr
13 Date of sentencing
mo-day-yr
14 Number of trial date resets 15 Number of adjournments during case 16 Reasons for adjournments (show percentages where
more than one adjournment for the same reason)
17 Who was application for adjournment made by 18 Type of disposition
19 Court location
APPENDIX III
85
JUDICIARY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE DEPARTMENT OF COURT ADMINISTRATION
Hall of Justice, Knox Street, Port of Spain
TEL: (868) 62-TTLAW (628-8529) Ext: 2384 Telefax: (868) 624-8537
December 18, 2006
Ms. Zorina Ali-Dan
Area Court Manager, North
St. George West Magistrates‘ Court
St. Vincent Street
Port of Spain
Dear Ms. Ali Dan,
RE: Case Flow Management Survey for Stakeholders in the Criminal Justice System
I am preparing a research paper to explore the extent to which caseflow management
concepts and principles are utilized in the criminal jurisdiction of the Magistrates‘ Court. I am
also exploring the extent to which caseflow management concepts can assist the Department of
Court Administration in dealing with the culture of adjournments and the delays in the
magistrates‘ court system. This research project will be utilized to assist the Judiciary in
developing some of the reform initiatives required for implementation in the Magistrates‘ Court.
I have attached a Court Assessment Questionnaire to be completed by various
stakeholders who operate in the criminal jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court in Trinidad and
Tobago. I would appreciate if you could facilitate the conduct of this survey by distributing
copies of the questionnaire to the following categories of persons at your court facility and
returning copies of the results to my office by January 9, 2007:
Magistrates (3)
Clerks of the Peace (2)
Court Registry Staff (3)
Police Prosecutors (2)
Attorneys practicing in the Magistrates‘ Court (2)
It is expected that the results of the initial research findings will be presented to the
participants to facilitate further discussion on the perceptions garnered from the surveys.
I look forward to your support in administering this survey. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if there is any need for clarification.
Yours faithfully,
Jerome R. Mark
Deputy Court Executive Administrator
APPENDIX IV
86
JUDICIARY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO THE DEPARTMENT OF COURT ADMINISTRATION
Hall of Justice, Knox Street, Port of Spain
TEL: (868) 62-TTLAW (628-8529) Ext: 2384 Telefax: (868) 624-8537
December 18, 2006
Mr. Arnold Sealy
Area Court Manager, South/Central
Couva Magistrates‘ Court
Church Street
Off Southern Main Road
Couva
Dear Mr. Sealy,
RE: Case Flow Management Survey for Stakeholders in the Criminal Justice System
I am preparing a research paper to explore the extent to which caseflow management
concepts and principles are utilized in the criminal jurisdiction of the Magistrates‘ Court. I am
also exploring the extent to which caseflow management concepts can assist the Department of
Court Administration in dealing with the culture of adjournments and the delays in the
magistrates‘ court system. This research project will be utilized to assist the Judiciary in
developing some of the reform initiatives required for implementation in the Magistrates‘ Court.
I have attached a Court Assessment Questionnaire to be completed by various
stakeholders who operate in the criminal jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court in Trinidad and
Tobago. I would appreciate if you could facilitate the conduct of this survey by distributing
copies of the questionnaire to the following categories of persons at your court facilities and
returning copies of the results to my office by January 9, 2007:
Magistrates (4)
Clerks of the Peace (3)
Court Registry Staff (5)
Police Prosecutors (3)
Attorneys practicing in the Magistrates‘ Court (3)
It is expected that the results of the initial research findings will be presented to the
participants to facilitate further discussion on the perceptions garnered from the surveys.
I look forward to your support in administering this survey. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if there is any need for clarification.
Yours faithfully,
Jerome R. Mark
Deputy Court Executive Administrator
87
COURT ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE*
CEDP PHASE III Survey Instrument 1
(Form C-1)
Instructions: 1. Score the court on each of the following sixty-five (65) question. If
you are uncertain, use your best estimate.
1. The court has adopted time standards that establish expected outside limits on case-
processing time from filing to disposition, for major categories of cases.
1 2 3 4 5
No standards or guidelines Informal guidelines exist Yes- - written standards have
been adopted and published
2. Magistrates who have responsibility for all or part of the caseload regularly receive
management information reports that enable them to know the number of pending cases
for which they are responsible, the distribution of these cases by age since filing, and
status of each case.
1 2 3 4 5
No some information yes- - all of this
provided regularly information is regularly
provided (at least monthly)
3. When new caseflow management programs or procedures are being considered, the
court‘s leaders consult with leaders of other organizations that may be affected (e.g., bar,
police service, prisons service, probation, prosecutor, legal aid).
1 2 3 4 5
No Sometimes Yes, as a
Standard policy
4. The court counts every case as pending from the date that the defendant has been arrested
or a summons is issued.
1 2 3 4 5
No Some categories of cases Yes
APPENDIX V
88
5. The Senior Magistrate of the district has established and/or endorsed the court‘s case-
processing time standards.
1 2 3 4 5
No Quiet support, yes, publicly and
within the court emphatically
6. There is a commonly shared commitment, on the part of the magistrates, to the principle
that the court has responsibility for ensuring expeditious case processing.
1 2 3 4 5
No shared some magistrates virtually all magistrates commitment are committed are committed
7. Members of the magistrates‘ support staff are knowledgeable about caseflow
management principles and techniques, and use them in helping to manage caseloads and
individual cases.
1 2 3 4 5
No Some Yes—virtually all are
knowledgeable and use
the principles and techniques
8. The Court regularly conducts training on caseflow management principles and techniques
for magistrates and staff.
1 2 3 4 5
No training Some training Yes
conducted irregularly
9. The Court has established, and uses, a system evaluating the effectiveness of magistrates
in handling the portions of the court‘s total caseload for which they have responsibility.
1 2 3 4 5
No Some criteria exist Yes
10. The court has a few or no cases pending for more that the maximum length of time
established by its own case-processing time standards or, alternatively, the ABA case-
processing time standards (see attached).
1 2 3 4 5
Don‘t know Many cases About 30% 10-15% are No cases or only
than the court‘s are older over the standards a few are over
(or ABA‘s) time the standards standards
89
11. There are published policies and procedures governing the caseflow process, readily
available to magistrates, the court‘s staff, and bar members.
1 2 3 4 5
No exist for some areas Yes cover all major
Caseflow issues/areas
12. The chief magistrate plays a leading role in initiating caseflow management
improvements in the court.
1 2 3 4 5
No Sometimes Yes
13. The magistrates are aware of the court‘s case-processing time standards.
1 2 3 4 5
No standard exist Some are aware Yes—all magistrates
14. Magistrates have, or can readily obtain, all information necessary to enable them to know
about the status of a case, its prior history in the court, and related cases involving the
same parties.
1 2 3 4 5
No Some information Yes
Usually available
15. Potentially protracted or complicated cases are identified early for special attention.
1 2 3 4 5
No Sometimes Yes, systematically
16. Consultation between magistrates and administrative staff about caseflow management
policies and procedures occurs.
1 2 3 4 5
Rarely or never Occasionally, mainly Regularly
17. The senior magistrate of the district regularly receives and disseminates information on
caseload status.
1 2 3 4 5
No Sometimes Yes
90
18. Assess the difficulty of an attorney obtaining an adjournment of a trial date or date for
any scheduled hearing.
1 2 3 4 5
Easily obtained upon Attorney must show cause, Can be obtained only on
Request or stipulation but request is usually granted written request/motion and
Showing of substantial cause
19. Judicial support staff notify the magistrates of cases that have been pending for long
periods of time and cases in which there have been repeated adjournments.
1 2 3 4 5
No Some Yes
20. Magistrates attend seminars on caseflow management and related topics.
1 2 3 4 5
No Some magistrates attend, Yes—all
no standard court policy magistrates are
sessions periodically expected to attend such
21. Magistrates who do an effective job of managing the caseloads for which they are
responsible are publicly recognized for their good performance.
1 2 3 4 5
No Sometimes Yes
22. The court disposes of at least as many cases as are filed each year, in each category of
criminal cases.
1 2 3 4 5
No filings consistently Some years, in some Yes, consistently
Exceed dispositions categores of cases
23. The court‘s staff as all levels are aware of the court‘s case-processing time standards and
other caseflow management goals.
1 2 3 4 5
There are no goals Some are aware Top staff are aware Yes
or standards
91
24. The court‘s record keeping system (including management information reports, whether
automated or manual):
1 2 3 4 5
Impedes effective Is not helpful Has some helpful features Is helpful Greatly facilitates effective
Caseflow management caseflow management
25. Assess the structure and frequency of communications between the court‘s leaders and
the bar concerning caseflow management policies and practices.
1 2 3 4 5
No mechanisms; No mechanisms; Consultation as Formal mechanisms Formal mechanisms infrequent consultation occasional informal requested by court occasional consultation frequent consultation
26. Magistrates‘ commitment to effective caseflow management is demonstrated by their
actions in holding lawyers to schedules, limiting adjournments to situations in which
good cause is shown, and allowing adjournments only for short intervals.
1 2 3 4 5
Generally, no Inconsistent Generally, yes
27. The system of scheduling cases for trials and evidentiary hearings provides attorneys and
the court with certainty that a case will be dealt with on the scheduled date.
1 2 3 4 5
Rarely Less than half 50-70% of 70-90% of 90-100% of The time the time the time the time
28. The court has a central staff unit that regularly monitors the caseload, identifies problems
(e.g., pending caseload increasing; certain cases taking unduly long), and provides
recommendations for action to the chief magistrate or senior magistrate.
1 2 3 4 5
No Some central staff monitoring Yes
occasional recommendations
29. The court has time standards/guidelines governing the time interval between each major
stage in the litigation process.
1 2 3 4 5
No Guidelines cover some Yes
but not all intervals
92
30. The court has a standard orientation programme for new magistrates and new staff
members, in which the court‘s policies and expectations regarding caseflow management
are covered thoroughly.
1 2 3 4 5
No Some orientation Yes, through orientation
31. The court has established, and uses, a system for evaluating the effectiveness o staff
members in performing their duties with respect to caseflow management.
1 2 3 4 5
No Some criteria exist Yes
32. Magistrates who have responsibility for portions of the court‘s caseload periodically
review the age and status of cases for which they are responsible.
1 2 3 4 5
Never Occasionally Yes, at least once
a month
33. The senior magistrate of the district is widely regarded- by magistrates, staff, and others –
as actively committed to reducing delays and implementing effective caseflow
management procedures.
1 2 3 4 5
No Mixed perceptions Yes
34. The Court‘s caseflow management goals, and its performance in relation to the goals, are
subjects of regular communication with the bar and media.
1 2 3 4 5
No Sporadic communication Yes
35. The court regularly produces reports that show trends in filings, dispositions, pending
caseloads, and case processing times.
1 2 3 4 5
No Some trend analysis Yes – regular analysis of
trends in all of these areas
93
36. The magistrates discuss the status of the caseload and other caseflow management issues
at regularly held magistrates‘ meetings.
1 2 3 4 5
No Sometimes Yes
37. Consultation with attorneys, by a magistrate or court staff member, occurs early in a case,
to set deadlines for completion of stages of the case.
1 2 3 4 5
No Only if requested by attorney Sometimes Mainly in complex cases Yes, in all cases
38. The magistrates recognize the need to monitor the pace of litigation and are actively
committed to seeing the court meet standards for expeditious case processing
1 2 3 4 5
No Some magistrates recognize the need Yes
39. Magistrates‘ support staff provides help in achieving the court‘s goals (e.g., in contacts
with attorneys, including scheduling cases for court dates).
1 2 3 4 5
No Some Yes
40. The court regularly conducts training sessions for practicing lawyers ( especially young
lawyers) to familiarize them with the court‘s caseflow management policies, procedures,
and expectations. 1 2 3 4 5
No Some training, Yes
Conducted irregularly
41. The senior magistrate meets with the magistrates in their districts to review the status of
pending caseloads and discuss ways of dealing with common problems.
1 2 3 4 5
No Occasionally Yes, at least once a month
42. The court regularly produces management information reports that enable magistrates
and staff to assess the court‘s progress in relation to its caseflow management goals.
1 2 3 4 5
No Information available Yes
On some goals
94
43. Mechanisms for obtaining the suggestions of court staff about caseflow management
problems and potential improvements exist and are used by the court‘s leaders.
1 2 3 4 5
No Occasionally Yes, at least once a month
44. Attorneys are ready to proceed on the scheduled trial date or hearing date.
1 2 3 4 5
Rarely Less than half 50-70% of 70-90% of 90-100% of
The time the time the time the time
45. Magistrates whose performance in managing the caseloads for which they are responsible
is below acceptable standards are provided with assistance and receive negative sanctions
if their performance does not improve.
1 2 3 4 5
No Sometimes Yes
46. The court follows established procedures to identify inactive cases and bring them to
disposition.
1 2 3 4 5
No Occasional reviews Yes – regular reviews
And purges of inactive cases are done and ―purge‖
Procedures are followed
47. The senior clerk of the peace in the district is widely regarded – by magistrates, staff, and
others as knowledgeable about caseflow management principles and practices, familiar
with the court‘s caseload situation, and effective in recommending and implementing
policy changes.
1 2 3 4 5
No Mixed perceptions Yes
48. The time required to complete case processing is generally within the time standards
adopted by the court (or, if no standards have been adopted by the court, does not exceed
the ABA case-processing time standards.)
1 2 3 4 5
Don‘t know Many cases Fair performance in Good performance Yes – the court is
Over standards relation to standards some improvement consistently within
Desirable the standards
95
49. Techniques for avoiding or minimizing attorney schedule conflicts are part of the
scheduling system, and attorneys‘ schedules are accommodated to the extent reasonably
possible.
1 2 3 4 5
Attorney schedule conflicts Sometimes techniques are used Techniques are uses and work
Are major problem system could be improved well; no improvement needed
on some goals
50. The court has adopted formal policies and procedures with respect to most or all areas of
caseflow management, and these policies are followed/enforced.
1 2 3 4 5
Few or no areas are Some formal policies Some formal policies Most areas have formal Most areas covered covered by formal rarely enforced inconsistent policies; enforcement by formal policies
policies enforcement needs some improvement enforcement
is consistent
51. Senior staff members regularly meet with magistrates in leadership positions to discuss
caseload status and develop plans for addressing specific problems.
1 2 3 4 5
No Occasionally Yes
52. The senior magistrates of the district reviews information on the performance of
magistrates in their divisions with respect to caseflow management, give public
recognition to those who are doing an outstanding job, and meet with those whose
performance is subpar to discuss needed improvements.
1 2 3 4 5
No Sometimes Yes
53. The court has adopted goals for the frequency with which trials start on the scheduled
date.
1 2 3 4 5
No Informal expectations exist Yes
96
54. Key management information reports are widely distributed to magistrates and staff, and
include short written analyses the highlight problems and issues.
1 2 3 4 5
No Limited distribution Yes
little analysis
55. The court provides information about its caseflow management goals and about its
performance in relation to these goals to the media on a regular basis.
1 2 3 4 5
No Occasionally Yes, regularly
56. Simple cases that may be amenable to swift disposition are identified at an early stage for
special processing.
1 2 3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes; mainly Some categories Yes, routinely
If counsel requests of cases
57. Court staff members attend seminars on caseflow management and related topics.
1 2 3 4 5
No Some staff members Yes – virtually all staff
have such training members periodically receive such training
58. The court has established goals for the maximum size of its pending caseload(s), and has
developed plans for reducing its caseload to that number (or, if the current caseload is at
an acceptable size, for ensuring that the caseload does not exceed the goal that has been
set).
1 2 3 4 5
No Some goals exist; Yes
status of plans unclear
59. The chief magistrate and/or senior magistrate for a district and the court administrator
regularly meet to review caseload status, discuss policy and operational problems
affecting caseflow management, and develop specific policies and plans.
1 2 3 4 5
Rarely or never Irregularly Yes – at least once a week
97
60. How frequently are cases that have been scheduled for trial or hearing adjourned because
there are more ready cases than can be dealt with on the scheduled date?
1 2 3 4 5
Very frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never
61. Staff members who do an effective job of managing caseloads for which they are
responsible are publicly recognized by the court‘s leaders for their good performance.
1 2 3 4 5
No Sometimes Yes
62. Discussions between senior magistrates and senior staff members in the court, concerning
caseflow management policies and procedures, occur:
1 2 3 4 5
Rarely Occasionally Regularly, and
whenever needed
63. Every pending case on the court‘s docket has a ―next action‖ date scheduled
1 2 3 4 5
Most cases do not Approximately 10-20% Approximately 20-40% Almost all cases have Yes
have next action of cases have no of cases have no next a next action date scheduled next action date action date scheduled date scheduled
scheduled
64. Magistrates conduct a trial management conference with attorneys, 5 to 21 days before
the scheduled trial date, to resolve pending motions, determine what issues of law and
fact are in dispute, and establish ―ground rules‖ with respect to voir dire, witness
scheduling, use of exhibits, and other issues likely to arise at trial.
1 2 3 4 5
No Rarely Some magistrates, Most magistrates, Yes, all magistrates,
in some cases in most cases in all except very
simple cases
98
65. The following caseflow management information is readily available and regularly used:
(Y=Yes; N=No)
Available Used Information
________ _______ Number of pending cases, by case type
________ _______ Age of pending cases (frequency distribution, within age
categories)
__________ _________ Change in number and age of pending cases since last
report or since previous year
________ _______ Age of pending caseload compared to time standards
________ _______ Age of cases at disposition, by case type
________ _______ Percentage of trials starting on first scheduled trial date
________ _______ Number of adjournments of scheduled events in each
case
________ _______ Reasons for each adjournment
________ _______ Number and proportion of dispositions by type of
disposition
________ _______ Annual filings and dispositions, by case type